Agenda packet — Placentia City Council, September 3, 2024 (part 7 of 7)

OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Off -road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Demolition - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Grading - See comment on "Unsubstantiated Reductions to Acres of Grading Values".

Architectural Coating - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Vehicle Trips - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Water And Wastewater - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Trips and VMT - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

On -road Fugitive Dust - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Vehicle Emission Factors - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Fleet Mix - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Road Dust - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Woodstoves - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Consumer Products - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Area Coating - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Landscape Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Energy Use - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Solid Waste - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Operational Off -Road Equipment - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Stationary Sources - Process Boilers - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Stationary Sources - Process Boilers EF - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Stationary Sources - User Defined - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Land Use Change - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Sequestration - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model. 947

CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 3 of 29 ends

OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Mobile Commute Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Area Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Energy Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Water Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Waste Mitigation - Consistent with IS/MND's model.

Table Name
Column Name
Default Value
New Value
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblConstructionPhase
tblLandUse
tblLandUse
tblLandUse
tblLandUse
•
Y
NumDays
NumDays
NumDays
NumDays
LandUseSquareFeet
LandUseSquareFeet
LotAcreage
LotAcreage

10.00 200.00

20.00 10.00
6,420.00
1,220.00

3.49 11.00
224.00

22.00 11.00
6,416.00
1,217.00

0.51 16.25 1.18

2.0 Emissions Summary
948

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
Unmitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021 •i 2.8312 1 20.2386 1 22.3367 0.0570 1 7.1944 1.0417 1 8.1108 1 3.4544 0.9722 ; 4.2975 • 0.0000 i 5,624.766 1 5,624.766 0.6480 1 0.2295 5,705.393 i i i i i 1 8 I 8 I 8
J J J J J J J J le 1 J J J
2022 • 160.0457 1 15.5872 1 21.4267 0.0559 1 3.1956 0.6279 1 3.8235 1 0.8553 0.6056 : 1.4609 • 0.0000 i 5,527.709 1 5,527.709 0.4730 1 0.2207 5,605.299 i i i i i ; 1
•
0 I 0 I i 4
Maximum
160.0457

20.2386

22.3367

0.0570

7.1944

1.0417

8.1108

3.4544

0.9722

4.2975

0.0000
5,624.766
5,624.766

0.6480

0.2295
5,705.393
8 8
8 Mitigated Construction
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Year
lb/day
lb/day
2021 •i 2.8312 1 20.2386 1 22.3367 0.0570 1 7.1944 1.0417 1 8.1108 3.4544 0.9722 : 4.2975 • 0.0000 i 5,624.766 : 5,624.766 i 0.6480 : 0.2295 5,705.393 1 8 8 8

I I I I I , I I I
J J J J J J J J v I J J J I
2022 • 160.0457 15.5872 21.4267 0.0559 3.1956 0.6279 3.8235 0.8553 0.6056 ; 1.4609 • 0.0000 i 5,527.709 5,527.709 0.4730 0.2207 5,605.299 i
I
•

I I I I I ,
0 I 0 I
4 Maximum
160.0457

20.2386

22.3367

0.0570

7.1944

1.0417

8.1108

3.4544

0.9722

4.2975

0.0000
5,624.766
5,624.766

0.6480

0.2295
5,705.393
8 8
8 949

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 5 of 29 ends

OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
950

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
1 Area •i 74.6467 5.6420 1 153.6952 0.3385 1 19.9798 19.9798 1 19.9798 ; 19.9798 • 2,435.398 4,718.659 1 7,154.058 7.3001 1 0.1653 7,385.818
9i I I • 8
2 1 0 I 2
e1 J J J J J J J J ;
J J J
Energy •i 0.0973 0.8325 1 0.3614 5.3100e- 1 0.0672 0.0672 1 0.0672 ; 0.0672 • 1,061.405 1 1,061.405 0.0203 1 0.0195 11,067.713
9 I 003 1 I •
7 1 7 I i 1
El J J J J J J J J ;
J J J
Mobile -i 6.6107 7.3116 1 66.2569 0.1513 16.6713 1 0.1059 16.7772 1 4.4436 0.0984 ; 4.5420 • i 15,565.93 1 15,565.93 0.9670 1 0.6566 1 15,785.76

9. 13 1 13 1 i 25
•
Total

81.3547

13.7861
220.3135

0.4951

16.6713

20.1529

36.8242

4.4436

20.1454

24.5890
2,435.398
21,345.99
23,781.39

8.2874

0.8413
24,239.29
8 62
49 39
Mitigated Operational
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Area -i 74.6467 i 5.6420 153.6952 0.3385 19.9798 19.9798 19.9798 19.9798 • 2,435.398 i 4,718.659 7,154.058 7.3001 0.1653 7,385.818 9 I I I 8 i 2 i 0 I 2
-1 J J J J J J J J • J J J 4
Energy •I 0.0973 0.8325 0.3614 5.3100e- 0.0672 0.0672 0.0672 : 0.0672 • 1,061.405 1,061.405 0.0203 0.0195 1,067.713
9I 003 ;I I
7 I 7I 1
-1 J J J J J J J J -
J J J •
Mobile .1 6.6107 7.3116 66.2569 0.1513 i 16.6713 I 0.1059 16.7772 4.4436 0.0984 4.5420 • I 15,565.93 15,565.93 0.9670 0.6566 15,785.76 9 . 13 13 I 25
9I I
Total

81.3547

13.7861
220.3135

0.4951

16.6713

20.1529

36.8242

4.4436

20.1454

24.5890
2,435.398
21,345.99
23,781.39

8.2874

0.8413
24,239.29
8 62
49 39
951

CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 7 of 29 ends

OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio-CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name
Phase Type
Start Date
End Date
Num Days
Week
Num Days
Phase Description
1 :Demolition :Demolition 110/29/2021 111/29/2021 i 5: 22:
i I i - - T
2 :Site Preparation Site Preparation 111/30/2021 112/1/2021 5: 2:
i I 1 - - T
3 -Grading !Grading 112/2/2021 112/7/2021 5: 4:

I 1 - - T
4 :Building Construction !Building Construction 112/8/2021 110/17/2022 5: 224:

I 1 - - 4
5 -Paving !Paying 110/18/2022 111/1/2022 5: 11
r T r --- -4- —
6 :Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating :11/2/2022 '11/16/2022 5' 11:

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.88
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4
Acres of Paving: 0.51
Residential Indoor: 526,500; Residential Outdoor: 175,500; Non -Residential Indoor: 14,124; Non -Residential Outdoor: 4,708; Striped Parking Area: 9,114 (Architectural Coating — sqft)
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment Type
Amount
Usage Hours
Horse Power
Load Factor
Demolition
Demolition
Demolition
Site Preparation
Site Preparation
:Concrete/Industrial Saws
:Rubber Tired Dozers ;
a i
:Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ;
a i
:Graders ;
:Rubber Tired Dozers
1 I 8.001 81 : 0.73
+ 4 4
1 I 8.001 247: 0.40
+ 4 t
3 8.001 97: 0.37
J. t
1 8.00? 187: 0.41

7.00 :
247; 0.40
952

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 8 of 29 ends

OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM
Site Preparation
Grading
• Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
•
:Graders
Grading :Rubber Tired Dozers
Grading :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Building Construction
Building Construction
Building Construction
:Cranes
:Forklifts
:Generator Sets
Building Construction :Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Building Construction
:Welders
Paving :Cement and Mortar Mixers
Paving
:Pavers
Paving :Paving Equipment
Paving
Paving
Architectural Coating
:Rollers
:Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
:Air Compressors
1i 8.001 97' 0.37
1 8.001 187: 0.41
1 8.001 247 : 0.40
2 7.001 97 • 0.37
1 6.001 231: 0.29
1 6.001 89 : 0.20
1 8.001 84 : 0.74
1 6.001 97 • 0.37
3 8.001 46 : 0.45
1 6.001 9: 0.56
1 6.001 130: 0.42
1 8.001 132: 0.36
1 7.001 80 : 0.38
1 8.001 97 • 0.37
E r
1 : 6.00: 78: 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name
Offroad Equipment
Count
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Paving
Architectural Coating
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
5: 13.00 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00: LD_Mix I HDT_Mix -J ' 4 ! J
3: 8.00 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00: LD_Mix I HDT_Mix 4: 10.00: 0.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00: LD_Mix i HDT_Mix -i i : I J
7: 255.00' 54.001 0.00: 14.70: 6.90: 20.00: LD_Mix i HDT_Mix -1 i : I I
5: 13.00. 0.001 0.00: 14.70' 6.90: 20.00: LD_Mix i HDT_Mix r * +
1: 51.00:

0.00: 0.00:

Hauling
Vehicle Class
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT
HHDT

14.70: 6.90: 20.00; LD_Mix : HDT_Mix : HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
953

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
•i 1.9930 1 19.6966 1 14.4925 0.0241 1 1.0409 1 1.0409 1 0.9715 ; 0.9715 ■ i 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 0.5940 1 2,337.565 i I I I I ; 1 1 I 1 I 8
1 1 1 I ,
Total

1.9930

19.6966

14.4925

0.0241

1.0409

0.9715

0.9715
2,322.717
2,322.717

0.5940
2,337.565
1 1
8 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000
a i
Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
9 1 1 1 1 1 •
1 1
a i
Worker •i 0.0455 0.0326 0.4301 1.2400e- 1 0.1453 8.3000e- 0.1461 1 0.0385 7.7000e- ; 0.0393 ■ 125.9987 1 125.9987 3.4100e- 1 3.3100e- 127.0692
9 '1
I I 003 I 004 I I 004
1 1 1 1 • '
•
I 003 I 003 i
Total

0.0455

0.0326

0.4301

1.2400e-

0.1453

8.3000e-

0.1461

0.0385

7.7000e-

0.0393
125.9987
125.9987

3.4100e-

3.3100e-
127.0692
003
004
004

003
003
954

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2021
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
•i 1.9930 1 19.6966 1 14.4925 0.0241 1 1.0409 1 1.0409 1 0.9715 ; 0.9715 ■ 0.0000 i 2,322.717 1 2,322.717 0.5940 1 2,337.565 i I I I I ; 1 1 I 1 I 8

I I I I ,
Total

1.9930

19.6966

14.4925

0.0241

1.0409

0.9715

0.0000
2,322.717
2,322.717

0.5940
2,337.565
1 1
8 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling • 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000
a i
Vendor •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0455

0.0326

0.4301

1.2400e-

0.1453

8.3000e-

0.1461

0.0385

7.7000e-

0.0393
125.9987
125.9987

3.4100e-

3.3100e-
127.0692
003
004
004

003
003
955

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust •i i i 1 6.2662 0.0000 1 6.2662 1 3.0041 0.0000 : 3.0041 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i
J J • I J
Off -Road • 1.5558 1 17.4203 1 7.5605 0.0172 1 0.7654 1 0.7654 1 0.7041 ; 0.7041 • i 1,666.517 1 1,666.517 0.5390 1 1,679.992 i i i i . 4 I 4 1 i 0
•
Total

1.5558

17.4203

7.5605

0.0172

6.2662

0.7654

7.0316

3.0041

0.7041

3.7082
1,666.517
1,666.517

0.5390
1,679.992
4 4
0 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
i i I i I
i I
I I . •
I I
Vendor •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
1 1 I 1 1 •
1 1
Worker •i 0.0280 1 0.0200 1 0.2647 7.7000e- 1 0.0894 5.1000e- 1 0.0899 1 0.0237 4.7000e- 0.0242 •

77.5377 1 77.5377 2.1000e- 1 2.0300e- 78.1964
1 1 004 1 004 I 1 004 •
I 003 I 003 I
Total

0.0280

0.0200

0.2647

7.7000e-

0.0894

5.1000e-

0.0899

0.0237

4.7000e-

0.0242

77.5377

2.1000e-

2.0300e-

78.1964
004
004
004
003
003
956

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust •i i i 1 6.2662 0.0000 1 6.2662 1 3.0041 0.0000 ; 3.0041 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i
J J • I J
Off -Road • 1.5558 1 17.4203 1 7.5605 0.0172 1 0.7654 1 0.7654 1 0.7041 ; 0.7041 • 0.0000 i 1,666.517 1 1,666.517 0.5390 1 1,679.992 i i i i i .
•
4 : 4 1 i 0
Total

1.5558

17.4203

7.5605

0.0172

6.2662

0.7654

7.0316

3.0041

0.7041

3.7082

0.0000
1,666.517
1,666.517

0.5390
1,679.992
4 4
0 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
i i I i I
i I
I I . •
I I
Vendor •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ■

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
1 1 I 1 1 •
1 1
Worker •i 0.0280 1 0.0200 1 0.2647 7.7000e- 1 0.0894 5.1000e- 1 0.0899 1 0.0237 4.7000e- 0.0242 ■

77.5377 1 77.5377 2.1000e- 1 2.0300e- 78.1964
1 1 004 1 004 I 1 004 •
I 003 I 003 I
Total

0.0280

0.0200

0.2647

7.7000e-

0.0894

5.1000e-

0.0899

0.0237

4.7000e-

0.0242

77.5377

2.1000e-

2.0300e-

78.1964
004
004
004
003
003
957

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust •i i i 1 7.0826 0.0000 1 7.0826 1 3.4247 0.0000 : 3.4247 • i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1r J .1 J .1 .1 J .1 J • • I J .1 .1
Off -Road • 1.8271 1 20.2135 1 9.7604 0.0206 1 0.9158 1 0.9158 1 0.8425 : 0.8425 • i 1,995.611 1 1,995.611 0.6454 1 2,011.747 i i i i i ; 4 1 4 1 i 0
•
Total

1.8271

20.2135

9.7604

0.0206

7.0826

0.9158

7.9983

3.4247

0.8425

4.2672
1,995.611
1,995.611

0.6454
2,011.747
4 4
0 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i
.•
Vendor
•
Worker •i

0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 ■ i i I i I
I I • •
J J J J J J J .1 •

0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 • 1 1 I 1 I •
i i
J J .1 .1 .1 J J .1 •

0.0350 1 0.0251 1 0.3309 9.6000e- 1 0.1118 6.4000e- 1 0.1124 1 0.0296 5.9000e- : 0.0302 • 004 004 i 004 •
•

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
i i
I I
.1 .1 J

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
1 1
J J J

96.9221 1 96.9221 2.6200e- 1 2.5400e- 97.7455
I 003 I 003 I
Total

0.0350

0.0251

0.3309

9.6000e-
004

0.1118

6.4000e-
004

0.1124

0.0296

5.9000e-
004

0.0302

96.9221

2.6200e-
003

2.5400e-
003

97.7455
958

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2021
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Fugitive Dust •i i i 1 7.0826 I 0.0000 1 7.0826 1 3.4247 0.0000 : 3.4247 • i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 i
J J • I J
Off -Road • 1.8271 1 20.2135 1 9.7604 0.0206 1 0.9158 1 0.9158 1 0.8425 ; 0.8425 • 0.0000 i 1,995.611 1 1,995.611 0.6454 1 2,011.747 i
4 1 4 1 I 0
Total

1.8271

20.2135

9.7604

0.0206

7.0826

0.9158

7.9983

3.4247

0.8425

4.2672

0.0000
1,995.611
1,995.611

0.6454
2,011.747
4 4
0 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
1 1 1 1 1 •
1 1 1
Vendor •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
i i i i i •
i i
i I
Worker •i 0.0350 1 0.0251 1 0.3309 9.6000e- 1 0.1118 6.4000e- 1 0.1124 1 0.0296 5.9000e- 0.0302 •

96.9221 1 96.9221 2.6200e- 1 2.5400e- 97.7455
004 004 i 004 •
I 003 I 003 I
•
Total

0.0350

0.0251

0.3309

9.6000e-

0.1118

6.4000e-

0.1124

0.0296

5.9000e-

0.0302

96.9221

2.6200e-

2.5400e-

97.7455
004
004
004
003
003
959

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
•i 1.8125 1 13.6361 1 12.8994 0.0221 1 0.6843 1 0.6843 1 0.6608 : 0.6608 ■ i 2,001.220 1 2,001.220 0.3573 1 2,010.151 i i i i i 1 0 I 0 I 7
I I I 1 I
Total

1.8125

13.6361

12.8994

0.0221

0.6843

0.6608

0.6608
2,001.220
2,001.220

0.3573
2,010.151
0 0
7 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i
•�
,l
Vendor •I
9 •1
Worker •I
•9
•1

0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■ 1 1 1 1 •
•

0.1264 2.9833 1.0006 0.0106 1 0.3453 0.0437 0.3890 1 0.0994 0.0418 ; 0.1411 ■ 1 1 1 1 •
•

0.8923 0.6389 8.4367 0.0244 1 2.8503 0.0163 2.8666 1 0.7559 0.0150 ; 0.7709 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 •
1 1 1 •

0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000
1 1
1,152.033 1 1,152.033 0.0648 1 0.1647 1,202.731
8 I 8 I 9
2,471.513 1 2,471.513 0.0668 1 0.0649 2,492.510
1 I 1 I I 2
Total

1.0187

3.6222

9.4373

0.0350

3.1956

0.0600

3.2556

0.8553

0.0568

0.9121
3,623.546
8 3,623.546
8 0.1316

0.2295
3,695.242
1 960

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2021
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
•i 1.8125 1 13.6361 1 12.8994 0.0221 1 0.6843 1 0.6843 1 0.6608 : 0.6608 • 0.0000 i 2,001.220 1 2,001.220 0.3573 1 2,010.151 i i i i i 1 0 I 0 I 7
I I 1 1 I
Total

1.8125

13.6361

12.8994

0.0221

0.6843

0.6608

0.0000
2,001.220
2,001.220

0.3573
2,010.151
0 0
7 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling -
•�
,l
Vendor •
9 •1
Worker •
•9
•1

0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■ 1 1 1 1 •
•

0.1264 2.9833 1.0006 0.0106 1 0.3453 0.0437 0.3890 1 0.0994 0.0418 ; 0.1411 ■ 1 1 1 1 •
•

0.8923 0.6389 8.4367 0.0244 1 2.8503 0.0163 2.8666 1 0.7559 0.0150 ; 0.7709 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 •
1 1 1 •

0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000
1 1
1,152.033 1 1,152.033 0.0648 1 0.1647 1,202.731
8 I 8 I 9
2,471.513 1 2,471.513 0.0668 1 0.0649 2,492.510
1 I 1 I I 2
Total

1.0187

3.6222

9.4373

0.0350

3.1956

0.0600

3.2556

0.8553

0.0568

0.9121
3,623.546
8 3,623.546
8 0.1316

0.2295
3,695.242
1 961

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
•i 1.6487 1 12.5031 1 12.7264 0.0221 1 0.5889 1 0.5889 1 0.5689 ; 0.5689 ■ i 2,001.542 1 2,001.542 0.3486 1 2,010.258 I I 1 1 I ; I g 9 I 1
I 1 I ,
Total

1.6487

12.5031

12.7264

0.0221

0.5889

0.5689

0.5689
2,001.542
2,001.542

0.3486
2,010.258
9 9
1 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000
a i
Vendor •i 0.0885 2.5179 0.8911 0.0102 1 0.3453 0.0237 0.3690 1 0.0994 0.0226 ; 0.1220 ■ 1,120.082 1,120.082 0.0640 1 0.1606 1,169.551
9 2 I 2 I 4
a i
Worker •i 0.8357 0.5662 7.8092 0.0237 1 2.8503 0.0154 2.8657 1 0.7559 0.0142 ; 0.7701 ■ 2,406.083 1 2,406.083 0.0604 1 0.0601 2,425.489
9 '1
1 1 1 1 1 •
1 1 1 •
9 I 9 I 9
Total

0.9242

3.0841

8.7003

0.0339

3.1956

0.0390

3.2346

0.8553

0.0368

0.8921
3,526.166
3,526.166

0.1244

0.2207
3,595.041
1 1
3 962

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
-i 1.6487 1 12.5031 1 12.7264 0.0221 1 0.5889 1 0.5889 1 0.5689 : 0.5689 • 0.0000 i 2,001.542 1 2,001.542 0.3486 1 2,010.258 I i i i i 1 9 I 9 I 1
I 1
Total

1.6487

12.5031

12.7264

0.0221

0.5889

0.5689

0.0000
2,001.542
2,001.542

0.3486
2,010.258
9 9
1 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling - 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000
a i
Vendor .i 0.0885 2.5179 0.8911 0.0102 1 0.3453 0.0237 0.3690 1 0.0994 0.0226 ; 0.1220 ■ 1,120.082 1,120.082 0.0640 1 0.1606 1,169.551
9 2 I 2 I 4
a i
Worker .i 0.8357 0.5662 7.8092 0.0237 1 2.8503 0.0154 2.8657 1 0.7559 0.0142 ; 0.7701 ■ 2,406.083 1 2,406.083 0.0604 1 0.0601 2,425.489
9 '1
1 1 1 1 1 •
1 1 1 •
9 I 9 I 9
Total

0.9242

3.0841

8.7003

0.0339

3.1956

0.0390

3.2346

0.8553

0.0368

0.8921
3,526.166
3,526.166

0.1244

0.2207
3,595.041
1 1
3 963

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road •i 0.6877 1 6.7738 1 8.8060 0.0135 1 I 0.3474 1 0.3474 1 0.3205 : 0.3205 • i 1,297.378 1 1,297.378 0.4113 1 1,307.660 i I I I I 9 I 9 I 8
I 1
.1 .1 .1 .1 1r J .1
Paving • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 •i 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 I ; I I
I 1 1 , • I
1 Total

0.6877

6.7738

8.8060

0.0135

0.3474

0.3205

0.3205
1,297.378
1,297.378

0.4113
1,307.660
9 9
8 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
ii 1 1 1 1 ;
1 1 I
Vendor •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
1 1 I 1 I •
1 Worker •i 0.0426 1 0.0289 1 0.3981 1.2100e- 1 0.1453 7.8000e- 1 0.1461 1 0.0385 7.2000e- 0.0393 • 122.6631 1 122.6631 3.0800e- 1 3.0600e- 123.6524
1 003 1 004 I 1 004 •
•
I 003 I 003 I
Total

0.0426

0.0289

0.3981

1.2100e-

0.1453

7.8000e-

0.1461

0.0385

7.2000e-

0.0393
122.6631
122.6631

3.0800e-

3.0600e-
123.6524
003
004
004
003
003
964

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2022
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road •i 0.6877 1 6.7738 1 8.8060 0.0135 1 I 0.3474 1 0.3474 1 0.3205 : 0.3205 ■ 0.0000 i 1,297.378 1 1,297.378 0.4113 1 1,307.660 i I I I I 9 I 9 I 8
1 1
.1 .1 .1 .1 1r J .1
Paving • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 •i 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 1 I • I I
1 1 1 , • I
1 Total

0.6877

6.7738

8.8060

0.0135

0.3474

0.3205

0.0000
1,297.378
1,297.378

0.4113
1,307.660
9 9
8 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
ii 1 1 1 1 ;
1 1 I
Vendor •• 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
1 1 I 1 I •
1 Worker •i 0.0426 1 0.0289 1 0.3981 1.2100e- 1 0.1453 7.8000e- 1 0.1461 1 0.0385 7.2000e- 0.0393 ■ 122.6631 1 122.6631 3.0800e- 1 3.0600e- 123.6524
1 003 1 004 I 1 004 •
I 003 I 003 I
•
Total

0.0426

0.0289

0.3981

1.2100e-

0.1453

7.8000e-

0.1461

0.0385

7.2000e-

0.0393
122.6631
122.6631

3.0800e-

3.0600e-
123.6524
003
004
004
003
003
965

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating •i
Off -Road •
159.6741 1 i 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■ i
1 1 I 1 I ; I
I 1
. I

0.2045 1 1.4085 1 1.8136 2.9700e- 1 0.0817 1 0.0817 1 0.0817 ; 0.0817 • i I 003 I I I • I
•
1 0.0000 1 0.0000
1 I
J
281.4481 1 281.4481 0.0183 1 281.9062
i I
Total
159.8786

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-
003

0.0817

0.0817
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■

0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
1 1 1 1 1 .
1 1 I
• J .1 J .1 .1 J
.1 J
Vendor 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
1 1 I 1 I •
1 1
i
Worker •i 0.1671 1 0.1132 1 1.5618 4.7300e- 1 0.5701 3.0800e- 1 0.5731 1 0.1512 2.8300e- 0.1540 • 481.2168 1 481.2168 0.0121 1 0.0120 485.0980
003 I 003 I 003 I
I
Total

0.1671

0.1132

1.5618

4.7300e-

0.5701

3.0800e-

0.5731

0.1512

2.8300e-

0.1540
481.2168
481.2168

0.0121

0.0120
485.0980
003
003
003
966

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2022
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating •i 159.6741 1 i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 : 0.0000 ■ i 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1
. I J
Off -Road • 0.2045 1 1.4085 1 1.8136 2.9700e- 1 0.0817 1 0.0817 1 0.0817 ; 0.0817 • 0.0000 i 281.4481 1 281.4481 0.0183 1 281.9062 003 I I I i • I
•
i I
Total
159.8786

1.4085

1.8136

2.9700e-

0.0817

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0183
281.9062
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling •i
.•
Vendor
Worker •i

0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ■ i i I i I
I I • •
.1 .1 J .1 J .1 .1 .1

0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 1 1 I 1 I •
i

0.1671 1 0.1132 1 1.5618 4.7300e- 1 0.5701 3.0800e- 1 0.5731 1 0.1512 2.8300e- 0.1540 • 1 003 I 003 I 003 I

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
i I
I I
.1 J .

0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000
1 1
481.2168 1 481.2168 0.0121 1 0.0120 485.0980
I
Total

0.1671

0.1132

1.5618

4.7300e-
003

0.5701

3.0800e-
003

0.5731

0.1512

2.8300e-
003

0.1540
481.2168
481.2168

0.0121

0.0120
485.0980
967

CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated •i 6.6107 1 7.3116 : 66.2569 i 0.1513 : 16.6713 i 0.1059 i 16.7772 : 4.4436 i 0.0984 4.5420 i i 15,565.93 : 15,565.93 i 0.9670 : 0.6566 i 15,785.76 ■ 13 13 l
'� I i 25
I
.
• :I• + F + + F + F 4. r• I- F F F
Unmitigated ' 6.6107 • 7.3116 • 66.2569 0.1513 • 16.6713 0.1059 16.7772 • 4.4436 0.0984 • 4.5420 • • 15,565.93 • 15,565.93 0.9670 • 0.6566 15,785.76 13 13 25

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise
1,903.20
2,116.40 •
1632.80 •
6,475,601 •
6,475,601
±
T
Enclosed Parking Structure
±
_ t
Government Office Building
; 145.03

0.00 0.00 •

243,933
243,933
Recreational Swimming Pool
; 35.16

11.10 •

16.59 •
70,802
70,802
-
T
.
f
Strip Mall
; 132.96
126.12 •

61.29 • 231,630
231,630
Total
I 2,216.35
2,253.62
1,710.68
7,021,966
7,021,966

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H -W or C -W
H -S or C -C
H -O or C -NW
H -W or C -W
H -S or C -C
H -O or C -NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass -by
Apartments Low Rise 14.70
Enclosed Parking Structure : 16.60
i 5.90 8.70 i 40.20 1

8.40 6.90 0.00

19.20 40.60 86

0.00 0.00 0
•
11 •
0 •0
•
3 968

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H -W or C -W
H -S or C -C
H -O or C -NW
H -W or C -W I H -S or C -C
H -O or C -NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass -by
Government Office Building 16.60
Recreational Swimming Pool 16.60
Strip Mall 16.60

8.40 6.90 4 33.00 62.00 5.00 50 34 16
7 4_8.40 : 6.90 i 33.00 i 48.00 19.00 52 39 9

8.40 6.90 • 16.60 64.40 19.00 • 45 40 15
•

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1 I LDT2 I MDV
LHD1 I LHD2

MHD I HHD

OBUS I UBUS

MCY I SBUS
MH
Apartments Low Rise
Enclosed Parking Structure
Government Office Building
Recreational Swimming Pool
Strip Mall

0.544795:
a

0.544795 i
a

0.544795 i

0.058861;

0.186903: 0.129401: 0.024381: 0.006522: 0.014242: 0.004855: 0.000656: 0.000385: 0.024332: 0.000723:

0.003942

0.544795• 0.058861: 0.186903: 0.129401: 0.024381: 0.006522: 0.014242: 0.004855: 0.000656: 0.000385: 0.024332: 0.000723: 0.003942

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
969

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
ir
lb/day
lb/day
NaturalGas 9 0.0973 i 0.8325 i 0.3614 : 5.3100e- i : 0.0672 1 0.0672 i i 0.0672 : 0.0672 : i 1,061.405 1 1,061.405: 0.0203 i 0.0195 i 1,067.713 Mitigated ;i I I I 003 .I 7 7 i 1
. 1 I I
NaturalGas . 0.0973 • 0.8325 • 0.3614 • 5.3100e- . • 0.0672 • 0.0672 . • 0.0672 • 0.0672 • . 1,061.405 . 1,061.405 • 0.0203 • 0.0195 . 1,067.713 Unmitigated 003 7 7 1

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Apartments Low I
Rise I
I
Enclosed Parking I
Structure I
I
I'
Government I
Office Building I
I'
Recreational I
Swimming Pool I
I I'
Strip Mall I
I
8846.51 •i
;�
7�
0 •I
.i
Ol
41 159.082 •�
.:
4I 1
0 •I
.1
41 16.3562 •
:'

0.0954 0.8153 : 0.3469 1 5.2000e- : 0.0659 0.0659 1 1 0.0659 ; 0.0659 • 003 I I I •

J J J J J J J J V
01 .0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 1 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •

J J J J J J J J

1.7200e- 0.0156 i 0.0131 i 9.0000e- i 1.1900e- 1.1900e- i i 1.1900e- : 1.1900e- • 003 I I 005 I 003 003 1 I 003 003 `

J J J J J J J J V
01 .0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 : 0.0000 • I I I I I .

J J J J J J J J V
� 1.8000e- 1.6000e- i 1.3500e- i 1.0000e- i 1.2000e- 1.2000e- i i 1.2000e- : 1.2000e- • 004 003 I I 003 I 005 I 004 004 1 004 004
i i i i i .
1,040.766 i 1,040.766 0.0200 0.0191
0 I 0 i
J J J

0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000
J J J

18.7155 i 18.7155 3.6000e- 3.4000e-
I 004 004 i
J J J

0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
J J J

1.9243 i 1.9243 4.0000e- 4.0000e-
I 005 005
i
1,046.950
7 0.0000

18.8267

0.0000

1.9357
Total

0.0973

0.8325

0.3614

5.3000e-
003

0.0672

0.0672
1,061.405
7 1,061.405
7 0.0204

0.0195
1,067.713
1 970

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa i
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Apartments Low
t
I 8.84651 ■i 0.0954 0.8153 1 0.3469 1 5.2000e- 1 0.0659 0.0659 1 1 0.0659 0.0659 • i 1,040.766 1 1,040.766 0.0200 0.0191 1,046.950 Rise
i :: : I 003 I 0 1 0 7
I
I- J J J J J J J J r J J J
Enclosed Parking
I 0 .1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Structure
I .i I I I I II
I
I- -II J J J J J J J J 7 J J J
Government
i 0.159082 ■1 1.7200e- 0.0156 1 0.0131 1 9.0000e- 1 1.1900e- 1.1900e- 1 1 1.1900e- ; 1.1900e- • 18.7155 1 18.7155 3.6000e- 3.4000e- 18.8267 Office Building
i ;: 003 005 003 003 i 003 003 • I 004 004
i
Recreational
i 0 ■i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Swimming Pool
I q I I I I I . I
I
I- 41 J J J J J J J J 1r J J J
Strip Mall
'0.0163562■1 1.8000e- 1.6000e- 1 1.3500e- 1 1.0000e- 1 1.2000e- 1.2000e- 1 1 1.2000e- ; 1.2000e- • 1.9243 1 1.9243 4.0000e- 4.0000e- : 1.9357 I :1
004 003 I 003 : 005 I 004 004 : I 004 004 :

I 005 005 i
Total

0.0973

0.8325

0.3614

5.3000e-

0.0672

0.0672
1,061.405
1,061.405

0.0204

0.0195
1,067.713
003
7 7
1 6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
971

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated •i 74.6467 i 5.6420 i 153.6952 1 0.3385 1 i 1 19.9798 i 19.9798 1 � i 19.9798 19.9798 : 2,435.398 i 4,718.659 1 7,154.058 i 7.3001 1 0.1653 i 7,385.818 2 9 I I I I I I I II 9I I I I I I I I ; 8 I 2 i 0 I I
i
.1 } 1} 4 } } 1} T • i• 1} 1
Unmitigated •• 74.6467 • 5.6420 • 153.6952 • 0.3385 • • 19.9798 • 19.9798 • • 19.9798 • 19.9798 • 2,435.398 • 4,718.659 • 7,154.058 • 7.3001 • 0.1653 • 7,385.818 8 2 0 2

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural •i
Coating ::
9Consumer •
Products ::
,�
Hearth •
9 9.

Landscaping ••�
9 9

0.4812 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •
I I
i i i •

J J J J J J J J
i 5.3882 I , 0.0000 i 0.0000 , 0.0000 : 0.0000 •
I I I :
•

J J J J J J J J V
1 0.0000 I
I I 1
i i

J J J T
, 0.0000 I
1 J J J
4,680.000 , 7,115.398 7.2628 , 0.1653
I
0 8 I I
J J J

38.6592 , 38.6592 0.0372 ,
1 1

0.0000

0.0000
7,346.228
2 39.5900
Total

74.6467

5.6420
153.6952

0.3384

19.9798

19.9798
2,435.398
8 4,718.659
2 7,154.058
0 7.3001

0.1653
7,385.818
2 972

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
1 lb/day
lb/day
Architectural •i
Coating ::
,�
Consumer •i
Products :'
el
Hearth -i
�I
Landscaping

0.4812 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 •
' .

5.3882 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 •1
I I I :

J J J J J J J J ;

68.1294 5.3946 1 132.2235 0.3373 1 19.8610 19.8610 1 19.8610 19.8610 • 2,435.398 9I I I : 8

J J J J J J J J V
9 0.6479 0.2475 1 21.4717 1.1300e- 1 0.1188 0.1188 1 0.1188 ; 0.1188 • 9I 003 :
1 0.0000 I : 0.0000
i
'
J J

0.0000 0.0000

J J J
4,680.000 1 7,115.398 7.2628 1 0.1653 7,346.228
0 I 8 I 2
J J J

38.6592 1 38.6592 0.0372 1 39.5900
'
Total

74.6467

5.6420
153.6952

0.3384

19.9798

19.9798
2,435.398
8 4,718.659
2 7,154.058
0 7.3001

0.1653
7,385.818
2 7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
973

CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 29 Date: 1/3/2024 4:17 PM OrangethorpePlacentia - - Orange County, Winter
EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number

11.0 Vegetation
974

Attachment C
Construction
2021
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Daily Emissions (Ibs/day)
Construction Duration (days)
Total DPM (Ibs)
Total DPM (g)
Start Date
End Date
Construction Days
2022
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Daily Emissions (Ibs/day)
Construction Duration (days)
Total DPM (Ibs)
Total DPM (g)
Start Date
End Date
Construction Days

0.0209

0.114520548
64 7.329315068
3324.577315
10/29/2021
1/1/2022
64 0.0586

0.32109589
321
103.0717808
46753.35978
1/1/2022
11/18/2022
321
Total
Total DPM (Ibs)
Total DPM (g)
Emission Rate (g/s)
Release Height (meters)
Total Acreage
Max Horizontal (meters)
Min Horizontal (meters)
Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)
Setting
Population
Start Date
End Date
Total Construction Days
Total Years of Construction
Total Years of Operation
110.4010959
50077.9371

0.001505469
3 2.72
148.37

74.19 1.5
Placentia
51,274
10/29/2021
11/18/2022
385

1.05 28.95
Operation
Emission Rate
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Daily Emissions (Ibs/day)
Total DPM (Ibs)
Emission Rate (g/s)
Release Height (meters)
Total Acreage
Max Horizontal (meters)
Min Horizontal (meters)
Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)
Setting
Population

0.0415

0.22739726
83 0.001193836
3 2.72
148.37

74.19 1.5
Placentia
51,274
975

Attachment D
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112
TITLE: OrangeThorpe, Construction
01/02/24
08:55:23
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** SOURCE EMISSION RATE:

AREA EMISSION RATE:

AREA HEIGHT:

AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:

AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:

INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION:

RURAL OR URBAN:

POPULATION:

INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =

0.151E-02 g/s

0.137E-06

3.00 148.37

74.19 1.50
URBAN
51274
g/(s-m2)
meters
meters
meters
meters
5000. meters

0.119E-01 lb/hr

0.109E-05 lb/(hr-m2)

9.84 feet
486.78 feet
243.41 feet

4.92 feet
16404. feet
*********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS **********************

BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON -POINT SOURCES
************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters

MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1 -HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
1* 1.000 4.121
* = worst case diagonal
0 75.0 WIN
976

********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:

MINIMUM WIND SPEED:

ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:
250.0 / 310.0 (K)

0.5 m/s

10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO:

BOWEN RATIO:

ROUGHNESS LENGTH:

0.35 1.50

1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT

YR MO DY JDY HR
10 01 10 10 01
HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50

HT REF TA HT

10.0 310.0 2.0
************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE

MAXIMUM
DIST 1 -HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3)

1.00 3.067 2525.00 0.3541E-01
977

25.00 3.487

50.00 3.818

75.00 4.121
100.00 2.832
125.00 2.038
150.00 1.605
175.00 1.308
200.00 1.095
225.00 0.9356
250.00 0.8125
275.00 0.7152
300.00 0.6362
325.00 0.5714
350.00 0.5168
375.00 0.4711
400.00 0.4320
425.00 0.3979
450.00 0.3682
475.00 0.3423
500.00 0.3195
525.00 0.2990
550.00 0.2808
575.00 0.2644
600.00 0.2496
625.00 0.2362
650.00 0.2240
675.00 0.2128
700.00 0.2025
725.00 0.1930
750.00 0.1843
775.00 0.1763
800.00 0.1688
825.00 0.1619
850.00 0.1555
875.00 0.1495
900.00 0.1439
925.00 0.1387
950.00 0.1337
975.00 0.1291
1000.00 0.1247
1025.00 0.1206
1050.00 0.1167
1075.00 0.1130
1100.00 0.1095
1125.00 0.1062
1150.00 0.1031
1175.00 0.1001
1200.00 0.9725E-01
1225.00 0.9455E-01
1250.00 0.9199E-01
2550.00 0.3494E-01
2575.00 0.3448E-01
2600.00 0.3402E-01
2625.00 0.3358E-01
2650.00 0.3315E-01
2675.00 0.3272E-01
2700.00 0.3231E-01
2725.00 0.3190E-01
2750.00 0.3151E-01
2775.00 0.3112E-01
2800.00 0.3074E-01
2825.00 0.3037E-01
2850.00 0.3000E-01
2875.00 0.2965E-01
2900.00 0.2930E-01
2925.00 0.2896E-01
2950.00 0.2862E-01
2975.00 0.2829E-01
3000.00 0.2797E-01
3025.00 0.2765E-01
3050.00 0.2734E-01
3074.99 0.2704E-01
3100.00 0.2674E-01
3125.00 0.2645E-01
3150.00 0.2616E-01
3175.00 0.2588E-01
3200.00 0.2561E-01
3225.00 0.2533E-01
3250.00 0.2507E-01
3275.00 0.2481E-01
3300.00 0.2455E-01
3325.00 0.2430E-01
3350.00 0.2405E-01
3375.00 0.2381E-01
3400.00 0.2357E-01
3425.00 0.2333E-01
3450.00 0.2310E-01
3475.00 0.2287E-01
3500.00 0.2265E-01
3525.00 0.2243E-01
3550.00 0.2222E-01
3575.00 0.2200E-01
3600.00 0.2179E-01
3625.00 0.2159E-01
3650.00 0.2139E-01
3675.00 0.2119E-01
3700.00 0.2099E-01
3724.99 0.2080E-01
3750.00 0.2061E-01
3775.00 0.2042E-01
978

1275.00 0.8954E-01
1300.00 0.8721E-01
1325.00 0.8498E-01
1350.00 0.8285E-01
1375.00 0.8144E-01
1400.00 0.7946E-01
1425.00 0.7755E-01
1450.00 0.7572E-01
1475.00 0.7397E-01
1500.00 0.7228E-01
1525.00 0.7066E-01
1550.00 0.6911E-01
1575.00 0.6761E-01
1600.00 0.6616E-01
1625.00 0.6477E-01
1650.00 0.6343E-01
1675.00 0.6214E-01
1700.00 0.6089E-01
1725.00 0.5968E-01
1750.00 0.5851E-01
1775.00 0.5739E-01
1800.00 0.5630E-01
1825.00 0.5524E-01
1850.00 0.5422E-01
1875.00 0.5324E-01
1900.00 0.5228E-01
1924.99 0.5135E-01
1950.00 0.5045E-01
1975.00 0.4958E-01
2000.00 0.4873E-01
2025.00 0.4791E-01
2050.00 0.4711E-01
2075.00 0.4633E-01
2100.00 0.4558E-01
2125.00 0.4485E-01
2150.00 0.4414E-01
2175.00 0.4344E-01
2200.00 0.4277E-01
2225.00 0.4211E-01
2250.00 0.4147E-01
2275.00 0.4085E-01
2300.00 0.4024E-01
2325.00 0.3965E-01
2350.00 0.3907E-01
2375.00 0.3851E-01
2400.00 0.3796E-01
2425.00 0.3743E-01
2449.99 0.3691E-01
2475.00 0.3640E-01
2500.00 0.3590E-01
3800.00 0.2024E-01
3825.00 0.2006E-01
3850.00 0.1988E-01
3875.00 0.1971E-01
3900.00 0.1953E-01
3925.00 0.1936E-01
3950.00 0.1920E-01
3975.00 0.1903E-01
4000.00 0.1887E-01
4025.00 0.1871E-01
4050.00 0.1855E-01
4075.00 0.1840E-01
4100.00 0.1824E-01
4125.00 0.1809E-01
4150.00 0.1794E-01
4175.00 0.1780E-01
4200.00 0.1765E-01
4225.00 0.1751E-01
4250.00 0.1737E-01
4275.00 0.1723E-01
4300.00 0.1709E-01
4325.00 0.1696E-01
4350.00 0.1682E-01
4375.00 0.1669E-01
4400.00 0.1656E-01
4425.00 0.1643E-01
4450.00 0.1631E-01
4475.00 0.1618E-01
4500.00 0.1606E-01
4525.00 0.1594E-01
4550.00 0.1582E-01
4575.00 0.1570E-01
4600.00 0.1559E-01
4625.00 0.1547E-01
4650.00 0.1536E-01
4675.00 0.1524E-01
4700.00 0.1513E-01
4725.00 0.1502E-01
4750.00 0.1492E-01
4775.00 0.1481E-01
4800.00 0.1470E-01
4825.00 0.1460E-01
4850.00 0.1450E-01
4875.00 0.1440E-01
4900.00 0.1430E-01
4924.99 0.1420E-01
4950.00 0.1410E-01
4975.00 0.1400E-01
5000.00 0.1391E-01
979

********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* 3 -hour, 8 -hour, and 24 -hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1 -hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA -454/R-92-019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1 -HOUR 3 -HOUR 8 -HOUR 24 -HOUR ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)

FLAT TERRAIN

4.121 4.121
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 75.00 meters

4.121 4.121
N/A

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 3.067 3.067 3.067 3.067 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
980

AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112
TITLE: OrangeThorpe, Operation
01/02/24
08:44:44
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** SOURCE EMISSION RATE:

AREA EMISSION RATE:

AREA HEIGHT:

AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:

AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:

INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION:

RURAL OR URBAN:

POPULATION:

INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =

0.119E-02 g/s

0.108E-06

3.00 148.37

74.19 1.50
URBAN
51274
g/(s-m2)
meters
meters
meters
meters
5000. meters

0.947E-02 lb/hr

0.861E-06 lb/(hr-m2)

9.84 feet
486.78 feet
243.41 feet

4.92 feet
16404. feet
*********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS **********************

BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON -POINT SOURCES
************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters

MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo
SECTOR
SURFACE 1 -HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
1* 1.000 3.269
= worst case diagonal
0 75.0 WIN
981

********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:

MINIMUM WIND SPEED:

ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:
250.0 / 310.0 (K)

0.5 m/s

10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO:

BOWEN RATIO:

ROUGHNESS LENGTH:

0.35 1.50

1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT

YR MO DY JDY HR
10 01 10 10 01
HO U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-0 LEN ZO BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50

HT REF TA HT

10.0 310.0 2.0
************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE

MAXIMUM
DIST 1 -HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3)

1.00 2.433 2525.00 0.2809E-01
982

25.00 2.766

50.00 3.028

75.00 3.269
100.00 2.246
125.00 1.617
150.00 1.273
175.00 1.038
200.00 0.8685
225.00 0.7421
250.00 0.6444
275.00 0.5672
300.00 0.5046
325.00 0.4532
350.00 0.4099
375.00 0.3736
400.00 0.3426
425.00 0.3155
450.00 0.2920
475.00 0.2715
500.00 0.2534
525.00 0.2371
550.00 0.2227
575.00 0.2097
600.00 0.1980
625.00 0.1873
650.00 0.1776
675.00 0.1687
700.00 0.1606
725.00 0.1531
750.00 0.1462
775.00 0.1398
800.00 0.1339
825.00 0.1284
850.00 0.1233
875.00 0.1186
900.00 0.1141
925.00 0.1100
950.00 0.1061
975.00 0.1024
1000.00 0.9890E-01
1025.00 0.9562E-01
1050.00 0.9252E-01
1075.00 0.8960E-01
1100.00 0.8684E-01
1125.00 0.8422E-01
1150.00 0.8173E-01
1175.00 0.7937E-01
1200.00 0.7713E-01
1225.00 0.7499E-01
1250.00 0.7296E-01
2550.00 0.2771E-01
2575.00 0.2734E-01
2600.00 0.2698E-01
2625.00 0.2663E-01
2650.00 0.2629E-01
2675.00 0.2595E-01
2700.00 0.2563E-01
2725.00 0.2530E-01
2750.00 0.2499E-01
2775.00 0.2468E-01
2800.00 0.2438E-01
2825.00 0.2409E-01
2850.00 0.2380E-01
2875.00 0.2351E-01
2900.00 0.2324E-01
2925.00 0.2297E-01
2950.00 0.2270E-01
2975.00 0.2244E-01
3000.00 0.2218E-01
3025.00 0.2193E-01
3050.00 0.2169E-01
3075.00 0.2145E-01
3100.00 0.2121E-01
3125.00 0.2098E-01
3150.00 0.2075E-01
3175.00 0.2053E-01
3200.00 0.2031E-01
3225.00 0.2009E-01
3250.00 0.1988E-01
3275.00 0.1967E-01
3300.00 0.1947E-01
3325.00 0.1927E-01
3350.00 0.1907E-01
3375.00 0.1888E-01
3400.00 0.1869E-01
3425.00 0.1851E-01
3450.00 0.1832E-01
3475.00 0.1814E-01
3500.00 0.1797E-01
3525.00 0.1779E-01
3550.00 0.1762E-01
3575.00 0.1745E-01
3600.00 0.1729E-01
3625.00 0.1712E-01
3650.00 0.1696E-01
3675.00 0.1680E-01
3700.00 0.1665E-01
3725.00 0.1650E-01
3750.00 0.1635E-01
3775.00 0.1620E-01
983

1275.00 0.7102E-01
1300.00 0.6917E-01
1325.00 0.6740E-01
1350.00 0.6571E-01
1375.00 0.6460E-01
1400.00 0.6302E-01
1425.00 0.6151E-01
1450.00 0.6006E-01
1475.00 0.5867E-01
1500.00 0.5733E-01
1525.00 0.5604E-01
1550.00 0.5481E-01
1575.00 0.5362E-01
1600.00 0.5248E-01
1625.00 0.5137E-01
1650.00 0.5031E-01
1675.00 0.4928E-01
1700.00 0.4829E-01
1725.00 0.4733E-01
1750.00 0.4641E-01
1775.00 0.4552E-01
1800.00 0.4465E-01
1825.00 0.4382E-01
1850.00 0.4301E-01
1875.00 0.4222E-01
1900.00 0.4146E-01
1924.99 0.4073E-01
1950.00 0.4001E-01
1975.00 0.3932E-01
2000.00 0.3865E-01
2025.00 0.3800E-01
2050.00 0.3736E-01
2075.00 0.3675E-01
2100.00 0.3615E-01
2125.00 0.3557E-01
2150.00 0.3500E-01
2175.00 0.3446E-01
2200.00 0.3392E-01
2224.99 0.3340E-01
2250.00 0.3289E-01
2275.00 0.3240E-01
2300.00 0.3192E-01
2325.00 0.3145E-01
2350.00 0.3099E-01
2375.00 0.3054E-01
2400.00 0.3011E-01
2425.00 0.2969E-01
2450.00 0.2927E-01
2475.00 0.2887E-01
2500.00 0.2847E-01
3800.00 0.1605E-01
3825.00 0.1591E-01
3850.00 0.1577E-01
3875.00 0.1563E-01
3900.00 0.1549E-01
3925.00 0.1536E-01
3950.00 0.1523E-01
3975.00 0.1509E-01
4000.00 0.1497E-01
4025.00 0.1484E-01
4050.00 0.1471E-01
4075.00 0.1459E-01
4100.00 0.1447E-01
4125.00 0.1435E-01
4150.00 0.1423E-01
4175.00 0.1411E-01
4200.00 0.1400E-01
4225.00 0.1389E-01
4250.00 0.1377E-01
4275.00 0.1366E-01
4300.00 0.1356E-01
4325.00 0.1345E-01
4350.00 0.1334E-01
4375.00 0.1324E-01
4400.00 0.1314E-01
4425.00 0.1303E-01
4450.00 0.1293E-01
4475.00 0.1284E-01
4500.00 0.1274E-01
4525.00 0.1264E-01
4550.00 0.1255E-01
4575.00 0.1245E-01
4600.00 0.1236E-01
4625.00 0.1227E-01
4650.00 0.1218E-01
4675.00 0.1209E-01
4700.00 0.1200E-01
4725.00 0.1192E-01
4750.00 0.1183E-01
4775.00 0.1175E-01
4800.00 0.1166E-01
4825.00 0.1158E-01
4850.00 0.1150E-01
4875.00 0.1142E-01
4900.00 0.1134E-01
4925.00 0.1126E-01
4950.00 0.1118E-01
4975.00 0.1110E-01
5000.00 0.1103E-01
984

********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* 3 -hour, 8 -hour, and 24 -hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1 -hour concentration as referenced in

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1 -HOUR 3 -HOUR 8 -HOUR 24 -HOUR ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)

FLAT TERRAIN

3.269 3.269
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 75.00 meters

3.269 3.269
N/A

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 2.433 2.433 2.433 2.433 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
985

Attachment E
SWAPE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA's Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 - present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 - 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); 986

• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 - 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989- 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 — 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 — 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 —1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 —1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 —1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt's responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt's duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 987

• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 3 988

public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service -wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed -scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high -levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi -Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 4 989

principles into the policy -making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year -long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
5 990

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern Califomia, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter -Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
6 991

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP -61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. GroundwaterCharacterization and Cleanup at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 7 992

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.
8 993

Attachment F
SWAPE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Focus on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 1 of 12 ends

994

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 — 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 — 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113-125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 2 of 12 ends

995

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation's Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS -6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 3 of 12 ends

996

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom -Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23'"d Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 4 of 12 ends

997

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium -Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23' Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23' Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 — 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants — DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey's C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey's Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 5 of 12 ends

998

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High -Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 6 of 12 ends

999

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High -Carbon Wood -Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Depaitiuent of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 7 of 12 ends

1000

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round -up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.

Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division Shirley Rails, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. 20 -CA -5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.

Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.

Case No. NO. 20 -CA -0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69 -DU -CV -21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 8 of 12 ends

1001

In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.

Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 9 of 12 ends

1002

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.

Case No. 0i9 -L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a

AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail Case No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case No. CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case No. 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No. 1716 -CV 10006
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-30-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 10 of 12 ends

1003

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS "Conti Perdido" Defendant.

Case No. 3:15 -CV -00106 consolidated with 3:15 -CV -00237 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles — Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No. 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No. 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintifs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No. C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9 -L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warm Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No. LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 11 of 12 ends

1004

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No. RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No. LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action No. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition June 2015
In The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case No. cc -11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Page 12 of 12 ends

1005

t,
Harris & Associates

I TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Andrew Gonzales, City of Placentia
From: William Halligan, Esq., Harris & Associates
Subject: Response to Comments from Victoria Yundt, Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER")
Date: August 16, 2024
Per your request, we have prepared the following responses to comments from Victoria Yundt, Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") received on July 8, 2024 after the close of the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Orangethorpe/Placentia Mixed Use Project (Proposed Project).

Responses
LD-1 The comments have been submitted on behalf of Supporters' Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) and its purported members "living and working in and around" the City of Placentia (the City).

However, it is not clear if any SAFER members actually live in the City, as no evidence was provided that actual members live in the City or that they work in the City. An introductory statement and information were provided asserting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared without the inclusion of substantial evidence to support a fair argument that an EIR should be prepared. Individual responses to comments from SAFER are provided below.

LD-2 Comment noted, although the comment references a 7 -level parking structure when only six levels are proposed within the Proposed Project.

LD-3 This section of the comment letter provides legal cases in support of preparing an EIR where substantial evidence shows that a project may result in significant adverse impacts. The Proposed Project's MND/IS was prepared in accordance with CEQA, including the CEQA Guidelines. As identified in responses to comments below, the IS/MND adequately analyzes the potentially significant environmental effects of the project with substantial evidence and provides feasible mitigation measures to reduce and avoid potentially significant environmental impacts. No significant and unavoidable impact would occur and preparation of an IS/MND is appropriate. The IS/MND incudes description of the Proposed Project site's existing environmental setting in page 1, Section 1.2, Environmental Setting, and the impacts of the Proposed Project have been measured against the real conditions on the ground. No substantial evidence of a fair argument has been provided to indicate that the Proposed Project was measured against hypothetical permitted levels.

LD-4
The commenter maintains that the IS/MND analysis of air quality impacts is not supported by substantial evidence, but the commenter's claims are themselves not supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to the commenter's claims about inconsistency between the air quality modeling and analysis within the IS/MND, Appendix A of the IS/MND documents the inputs for the construction phase lengths and acres to be graded. The construction phases documented in Appendix A are 101 Progress, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92618 ■ p: 949.655.3900 ■ f: 949.655.3995 ■ www.WeAreHarris.com 1006

Harris & Associates
consistent with the construction schedule outlined in Section 2.4.4.b of the IS/MND. The inputs are based on the project -specific construction schedule provided by the Project Applicant and Project Architect. The default values that were changed in the model were justified in the CalEEmod worksheets. The CaIEEMod User's Guide expressly calls for use of project -specific data when available, as they are more accurate than the default inputs based on general data collected across California. The default phase length of ten workings days was determined to be too long for the Proposed Project because of the small size of the site and was reduced based on discussion with the Project Applicant and Project Architect to reflect a more realistic schedule for the Proposed Project. Similarly, the entire 2.72 acre site was assumed to be disturbed during both site preparation and grading (see Pages 6 and 7 of 36 in Appendix A). The total site area was determined to be representative of the total grading area and does reflect multiple passes of areas to be disturbed during the six days estimated for site preparation and grading. As a result, the construction emissions modeling in Appendix A accurately reflects the project -related emissions for construction. SWAPE incorrectly relied on CaIEEMod defaults rather than actual project construction data to falsely increase the ROG emissions to 150.4 pounds per day. It should also be noted that SWAPE provides emissions for reactive organic gases (ROG), while the MND provides the emissions for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The EPA and South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) now define regulated organic compounds as VOCs rather than ROG, consistent with the CaIEEMod Model.

LD-5
2 The Commenter asserts that use of the localized significance thresholds (LSTs) to determine the health risk impacts on nearby sensitive receptors is incorrect, but does not provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that there is a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors. As documented in the Initial Study, use of LSTs to correlate the cancer and non -cancer risks from project -related construction diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been clearly identified as the preferred methodology by staff at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) since the 2015 Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) guidelines were adopted. The commenter does not provide any evidence to support why there is any legal deficiency with the South Coast AQMD preferred methodology used here. The City follows the guidance of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which does not recommend analysis of toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as DPM, from short-term construction activities.

According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from DPM are based on continuous exposure over a 70 -year lifetime. Given the short-term construction schedule of approximately 14 months, the Project would not result in a long-term source of TAC emissions. Therefore, a HRA for construction emissions is not warranted.

The commenter claims that an HRA assessing the combined TAC impacts from Project construction and operation should be prepared taking into account age sensitivity factors from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Risk Assessments (Guidance Manual). OEHHA developed the Guidance Manual in conjunction with CARB for use in implementing the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program (Health and Safety Code Section 44360 et. seq.). The Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of certain substances routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Act are to collect emission data, to identify facilities having localized impacts, to ascertain health risks, to notify nearby residents of significant risks, and to reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels.

The Guidance Manual provides recommendations related to cancer risk evaluation of certain short-term projects. As discussed in Section 8.2.10 of the Guidance Manual, "The local air pollution control districts sometimes use the risk assessment guidelines for the Hot Spots program in permitting decisions for 1007

Harris & Associates
short-term projects such as construction or waste site remediation." Short-term projects that would require a permitting decision by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) typically would be limited to site remediation (e.g., stationary soil vapor extractors) and would not be applicable to the proposed Project. The new Guidance Manual does not provide specific recommendations for evaluation of short-term use of mobile sources (e.g., heavy-duty diesel construction equipment).

Additionally, comments presented to the SCAQMD Governing Board (Meeting Date: June 5, 2015, Agenda No. 28), relating to toxic air contaminant exposures under Rules 1401, 1401.1, 1402 and 212 revisions, specifically addressed the use of the OEHHA guidelines for projects subject to CEQA:

The Proposed Amended Rules are separate from the CEQA significance thresholds. The Response to Comments Staff Report PAR 1401, 1401.1, 1402, and 212 A - 8 June 2015 SCAQMD staff is currently evaluating how to implement the Revised OEHHA Guidelines under CEQA. The SCAQMD staff will evaluate a variety of options on how to evaluate health risks under the Revised OEHHA Guidelines under CEQA. The SCAQMD staff will conduct public workshops to gather input before bringing recommendations to the Governing Board. In the interim, staff will continue to use the previous guidelines for CEQA determinations.

To date, the SCAQMD, as a commenting agency, has not conducted public workshops nor developed policy relating to the application of age sensitivity factors utilizing OEHHA guidance for projects prepared by other public/lead agencies subject to CEQA.

SCAQMD recommends that HRAs be conducted only for substantial sources of DPM, such as truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities that generate more than 100 trucks per day or more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units. Based on this guidance, a HRA is not required as the residential mixed -use project would not generate substantial amounts of DPM during operation, as discussed below.

As shown on Table 4 on page 54 of the IS/MND, the construction emission rates would not exceed the LSTs for the existing residences in the area surrounding the Proposed Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the proposed residential project is not the type of land use which would generate substantial quantities of toxic air contaminants such DPM during project operation (such as industrial projects). The Project does not include any land uses that are a typical source of TACs according to CARB screening distance guidelines.' Consistent with the South Coast AQMD guidelines, residential projects do not warrant a full health risk assessment to substantiate less than significant health risk impacts in this regard.

Additionally, CARB recommends avoiding siting sensitive receptors close to land uses that generate more than 100 truck trips per day, assuming long term operation of the new use.2 The Proposed Project is anticipated to generate a maximum of 94 heavy truck trips per day for only four days during grading, and 54 trucks per day or less for the remainder of the 14 -month construction period. As such, the Project would not be expected to generate exhaust emissions from truck trips that would require a HRA.

Regarding the health risk calculation provided in Appendix B to the comment letter, the calculated emissions rates are overestimated for the Proposed Project site and therefore do not accurately represent actual pollutant exposure because of the Proposed Project. For example, the total of 83 pounds of exhaust emissions calculated for the Project includes all mobile emissions from Project operation. Only a small amount of these emissions would occur on the Project site. As such, assuming all 1 California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. 2 California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. 3 1008

RE
Harris & Associates
LD-6
LD-7
mobile emissions would occur in the 2.72 acre Project site for 30 years overestimates individual receptor exposure and does not accurately represent impacts that would occur as result of Project implementation. As such, substantial evidence does not support a fair argument of a significant impact.

The emissions analysis in Appendix A of the IS/MND is based on modeling conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. This model is released by the California Air Pollution Officer's Association (CAPCOA) and is widely accepted by air districts throughout California to use for estimate project -level land use development project's criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions impacts under CEQA. The assumptions and limitations of the model are documented in the User's Guide.3 As such, the use of the the GHG modeling is supported by substantial evidence.

The GHG impact evaluation provides a quantitative evaluation of the Proposed Project GHG emissions impacts under GHG Threshold (a) and a qualitative analysis of consistency of the Proposed Project with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As such, the IS/MND does not utilize existing regulations as a means to justify less than significant GHG emissions impacts. The significance conclusion under GHG Threshold (a) is based on whether the Proposed Project generates a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to the CEQA baseline and the City has chosen to use the threshold identified in the IS/MND as the threshold of significance for this impact. To this end, a lead agency "has substantial discretion in determining the appropriate threshold of significance to evaluate the severity of a particular impact," and the agency's choice of threshold will be upheld if it is "founded on substantial evidence." (Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 206; Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 885; East Sacramento Partnerships For A Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 300; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068; Citizens for Responsible Equitable Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327, 333.) As identified under GHG Threshold (a) the Proposed Project would not exceed the South Coast AQMD Working Group's brightline emissions threshold. The referenced SCAQMD 2035 target in Appendix B to the comment letter was discussed at the September 28, 2010 Stakeholder Working Group meeting. However, the revised target was not adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board, and the City has no obligation to utilize a non -adopted threshold suggested by the commenter. In the IS/MND, the City chose to utilize a threshold where the Project is evaluated against the most recent threshold adopted by the Governing Board. Additionally, as discussed in Section 2.4.9.a, the adopted screening level threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e and efficiency target of 4.8 MT CO2e/year/service population were conservatively scaled to 2,520 MT CO2e and 4.0 MT CO2e/year/service population to reflect more stringent statewide emissions reduction targets. As such, substantial evidence supports the threshold of significance that the IS/MND uses for evaluating whether the Proposed Project would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions.

The impact analysis under GHG Threshold (b) is limited to whether or not the Proposed Project would conflict with plans that have been adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions. It should be noted that a CEQA impact would only occur if inconsistency with a plan would result in environmental impacts.

As identified under GHG Threshold (b) the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts in this regard.

The commenter speculates about the types of indoor building materials that would be used during construction. There is no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will involve use of materials that contain formaldehyde in levels that pose a risk to human health. Additionally, the Proposed Project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which requires that all composite wood products used on the interior of a building "shall meet the requirements for 3 California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA). 2017, November 8. CaIEEMod User's Guide. http://www.caleemod.com/
4 1009

Harris & Associates
LD-8
formaldehyde as specified in California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Composite Wood (17 California Code of Regulations Section 93120 et seq.)." CALGreen, established mandatory planning and design standards for reducing internal air contaminants for formaldehyde under CALGreen Section 5.504.4.5, Composite wood products, for non-residential structures. Materials must meet the specified emission limits for formaldehyde, as shown in Table 5.504.4.5 of CALGreen. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, compliance with a regulatory permit or other similar process may be identified as mitigation if compliance would result in implementation of measures that would be reasonably expected, based on substantial evidence in the record, to reduce the significant impact to the specified performance standards.

In summary, without substantial evidence that building materials that will be used in project construction will emit formaldehyde gas in levels that will exceed the State's emission limits, the commenter's assertion that future project employees and residents of the Proposed Project could be at risk for carcinogens constitutes speculation, and not a fair argument.

Additionally, the IS/MND evaluates compatibility of the project for the potential of the Proposed Project to result in physical impacts to the environment. Pursuant to California Building Industry Association v.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478), impacts of the environment on the Proposed Project are not CEQA impacts. As identified in Section 2.4.4, Air Quality, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in concentrations of air pollutants as the Proposed Project does not generate a substantial number of trucks or stationary sources of emissions onsite. The commenter does not provide any substantial evidence that the Proposed Project would exacerbate existing environmental conditions with respect to formaldehyde emissions. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not exacerbate existing environmental hazards.

As discussed in above LD-1 through LD-7, all impacts have been reduced to a less than significant, and preparation and circulation of an EIR is not necessary. Comments will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for consideration prior to approval of the Proposed Project. 5 1010

This page intentionally left blank.
6 1011

Andrew Gonzales
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Gilad Ganish
Friday, August 16, 2024 11:48 AM
Andrew Gonzales
Gilad Ganish
Orangethorpe Economic Analysis
FIA Placentia - Orangethorpe Report 8.16.24.pdf; Orangthorpe.Placentia_Letter_Peer Review.pdf
Follow up
Flagged

EMAIL FROM EXTERNAL SOURCE
Don't reply, click on a link or open an attachment unless you recognize the sender and know the content to be safe. If you believe this email to be unsafe, please use the Report Phish button in Outlook and notify the IT department.

Hi Andrew -
We hired RSG (-lttps://rsgsolLtions.com/) to do an economic analysis and also look at the Stover analysis.

Gilad
Gilad Ganish
Blackwood Real Estate
1000 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 510-8255 Direct
(949) 625-9202 Fax
[email protected]
RECEIVE?
AUG 19 2024

PLANNING
i

• RSG

BETTER COMMUNITIES
BOLDER FUTURES.

Via Electronic Mail
August 14, 2024 [email protected]
Gilad Ganish, Partner
Orangethorpe Investment Partners, LLC
c/o Blackwood Real Estate
2881 East La Cresta Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806

RSG FISCAL & ECONOMIC IMPACT REPORT AND JON STOVER & ASSOCIATES

DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS COMPARISON
Dear Mr. Ganish:

RSG, Inc. ("RSG") has prepared this letter to assist the Blackwood, LLC with comparing the Development Impact Analysis conducted by the City's consultant Jon Stover & Associates ("City Consultant") to the Fiscal and Economic Impact Report prepared by RSG on behalf of Blackwood, LLC. The two reports analyze various potential development options and their associated fiscal impacts for the 777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue project site ("project").

For context, the project entails the redevelopment of a shuttered car dealership on a

2.72 -acre parcel with a mixed -use project consisting of 248 multifamily units, a 335 - space parking structure, and a limited amount of ground floor commercial and resident serving amenities.

Report Summaries
The Development Impact Analysis prepared by the City Consultant evaluates three proposed development scenarios for the project that include development of the site as either (a) residential; (b) a hotel; or (c) a car dealership. This report focuses on the financial impacts of the three scenarios including comparing the revenue streams from various taxes (sales, transient occupancy, and property), and fees (building permit, plan check, and development impact fees (traffic, sewer, etc.)). The report also reviews impacts on job creation, salary and wages, construction, and stabilized operations under each scenario. Overall, this report emphasizes the economic contributions and accompanying implications of each scenario on the local economy with special attention to employment opportunities, revenue generation and the fiscal impacts over a 15 -year timeframe.

The Fiscal and Economic Impact Report conducted by RSG considers the implications for the development of the project site as mixed -use residential consisting of studios, 1 -2 -bedroom units, on -site amenities, open -space, parking spaces/garage, and retail space. The report pays special attention to the fiscal impacts associated with the mixed -used development that include revenues from multiple tax sources (property, utility, sales & transaction, and property tax in -lieu of motor vehicle fee) and business 1013

Gilad Ganish, Partner
Orangethorpe Investment Partners, LLC
August 14, 2024

Page 2 ends

license fees. The report also projects the net -new revenues culminating from the proposed mixed -used development during construction and upon stabilization over a 28 -year timeframe. In sum, this report highlights the project's potential to support local businesses, generate substantial tax revenues and offset costs for municipal services.

Report Findings
Because both reports evaluated residential development, this letter compares the findings and conclusions by the City Consultant and RSG. The City Consultant identified a total annual revenue impact of $188,097 to the City, compared to a conclusion of $473,866 concluded by RSG, which is more than 2.5x greater than the City Consultant's conclusion. From the limited information in the City Consultant's report, we could not see why they omitted certain project related impacts.

The City Consultant also estimated annual general fund expenditures by the City, while the RSG study did not make such estimates. Their estimate amounted to an annual impact of $246,435. Without providing commentary on this amount of expenditure, we do note that it still is substantially exceeded by the total annual revenues to the City as estimated by RSG, so we conclude that the project would actually remain fiscally beneficial even after taking into account the costs of services as estimated by the City Consultant report.

See the summary below comparing the conclusion between the two studies:

Annual Project Estimates City Consultant
Revenues
Property Taxes
Property Tax in Lieu of VLF
EIFD Taxes
Sales Tax (Bradley Burns)
Measure U
Business License Fees
Utility Users Tax
Total Revenue
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
RSG Difference
$158,955 $162,052 +3,097
O 87,952 +87,952
O 112,303 +112,303
13,957 27,963 +14,006
15,186 27,963 +12,777
O 1,884 +1,884
O 53,749 +53,749
188,097 473,865 285,768
(246,435, ,246,435, 0
($ 58,338) $ 227,430 $ 285,768
Finally, the City Consultant separately estimated $1,236,879 of one-time revenues from the project, including development impact fees, fees to other agencies, and charges for entitlements and permits; RSG did not study one-time impacts. 1014

Gilad Ganish, Partner
Orangethorpe Investment Partners, LLC
August 14, 2024

Page 3 ends

Please let me know if you have any questions or need further help.

Sincerely,
PSG, Inc.

Jim Simon
President/Principal
1015

r
t
• o
4• 9-
u
a
• E
> E
a o
d=
a o
s W
oa
CD To
F. ,H
O IL
Placentia, California
Augus t 2024

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024

INTRODUCTION
RSG, Inc. ("RSG") is providing this Fiscal and Economic Impact Report ("Report") analyzing a proposal for a mixed -use development project located at 777 West Orangethorpe Avenue ("Project") within the City of Placentia, California. The proposed Project is being developed by Orangethorpe Investment Partners LLC ("Developer") who have been working closely with the City of Placentia ("City") on the design of the Project and is currently under contract for the acquisition for redevelopment of the former auto dealership located at the Project site.

RSG's scope of work analyzes the fiscal and economic impacts of the Project for the duration of the Project's construction beginning summer 2025 and ending summer 2027, plus twenty-five years after completion. This Report intends to demonstrate whether the Project, once built, will help support existing local businesses and generate tax revenue for the City.

RSG QUALIFICATIONS
RSG provides a range of fiscal services to help government agencies become more effective with the resources they use to serve communities. We offer fiscal impact analyses, assistance in securing financing, annexation and incorporation studies, municipal service reviews, and community engagement services.

Our fiscal impact studies aim to provide clarity and insight to staff and decision -makers, helping under- resourced communities gain access to the resources needed for sustainability and quality of life. We prepare municipal service reviews and sphere of influence updates, and evaluate reorganization, annexation, or incorporation proposals, providing independent analysis and recommendations.

RSG has prepared dozens of fiscal impact studies for projects throughout California, including the following projects in Southern California within the past 10 years:
• Toll Bros Multifamily (Orange Co.)
o Dana Point Multifamily Project (Completed 2022)
o Santa Ana 4th & Main Mixed Use Project (Completed 2019) • City of Jurupa Valley (Riverside Co.)
o Rio Vista Specific Plan (Scheduled 2024 Completion) ^ o Rubidoux Commerce Park (Completed 2023) ^
o The District Specific Plan (Completed 2023) ^
o ^ Included community benefits analysis
• Vineyards Development / Santa Ana (Orange Co.)
o Bowery (Santa Ana) Multifamily Project (Completed 2020) 1 1017

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
o 2525 Main Multifamily (Santa Ana) Project (Completed 2019) o Dyer Road / Heritage (Santa Ana) Multifamily Project (Completed 2015) • The Concord Group
o El Segundo Residential Development Fiscal Analysis (Completed 2023) o Santa Monica BI (Beverly Hills) Office Project Fiscal Impact Analysis (Completed 2021) o Medical Main Street (Lancaster) Mixed Use Master Plan (Completed 2021) o 4th & Cabrillo (Santa Ana) Mixed Use Project (Completed 2020) o 4th & Mortimer (Santa Ana) Mixed Use Project (Completed 2020) o 651 Sunflower / Legacy (Santa Ana) Multifamily Project (Completed 2019) o Ridgeline (San Bernardino) Retail Project (Completed 2015)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the Project description, assumptions, and methodology outlined herein, RSG projected the following impacts:
• Approximately $473,850 in annual net new revenue to the City once the project is fully built and stabilized in FY 2028-29. These revenues include the following:
o Property tax revenues of approximately $274,350. This includes the City General Fund, Library District, Street Lighting District, and Placentia Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District ("EIFD") tax increment revenue.
o Property tax in -lieu of motor vehicle license fee revenues of approximately $87,950. o Business license fees of approximately $1,900.
o Statutory sales taxes of approximately $27,950, plus an additional $27,950 from the City's Measure U 2018 ballot initiative.
o Utility taxes collected on communications, electricity, and gas usage of $53,750.

Over the 27 -year forecast period, the Project is projected to generate total cumulative revenues of $15.8 million ($7.9 million in 2024 dollars)1. The forecast includes assumed inflation rates based on industry standards.
1 The analysis uses a 5 percent discount rate based on the recent municipal debt rates. 2 1018

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
• Employment projections for the entire Orange County region show about 25 permanent jobs from the ongoing operation of the retail space and residential units coupled with 1,198 temporary construction jobs during the development of the project.

Table 1 below provides a summary of the 27 -year cumulative revenue forecast and net present value by revenue type:

Table 1 Fiscal Impact Projection Summary: Construction Period +25 Year Recurring Tax Forecast Property Taxes
General
Fund
Library and
Lighting
EIFD
Property Business
Tax In -Lieu License
of VLF Fees
Sales and Transaction
Taxes Total Tax
Utility Tax Revenues
Statutory
Measure U
Annual Revenue (2028-29) $ 80,392 $ 81,659 $ 112,303 $ 87,952 $ 1,884 $ 27,963 $ 27,963 $ 53,749 $ 473,866 27 -year Cumulative Total 2,653,458 2,695,268 3,706,711 2,896,290 55,297 1,024,831 1,024,831 1,735,705 15,792,392 Net Present Value* $1,320,892 $1,341,706 $1,845,203 $1,443,065 $ 29,380 $ 513,329 $ 513,329 $ 890,156 $ 7,897,060 *Net Present Value assumes 2024 dollars at a 5% discount rate

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project, located at 777 West Orangethorpe Avenue in Placentia, California, is approximately 2.72 acres in size and consists of a closed auto dealership and paved lot. The Property is presently vacant and generates little fiscal benefit to the City. The Developer anticipates a 24 -month buildout of the Project beginning in summer of 2025, which has been factored into the projections within this Report.

According to the Developer's submittal set2, the Project site would be redeveloped primarily as multi- family residential and will include 248 units consisting of studios, 1- and 2 -bedroom units as well as 6,400 square feet of on -site amenities3. It would also include designated retail space, open space, and up to 335 resident and guest parking spaces within a 6 -tiered above ground parking garage.

Table 2 below summarizes the proposed Project at build out. 2 Dated May 22, 2024.
3 On site amenities would include a clubhouse, pool deck, co -working space, and a fitness center. 3 1019

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
Table 2: Project Summary
Square Residential Parking
Footage Units Spaces
Residential
Studio 24,685 44
1 Bedroom 95,546 136
2 Bedroom 72,336 68
Total 192,567 248
Amenities
Leasing/ Lobby 1,481
Club 1,444
Fitness 1,571
Co -Work 874
Mail 1,046
Total 6,416
Commercial
Retail 2,703
Parking
Parking Structure 132,017 335
Total 333,703 248 335
Source: Architectural Set 5/22/24
4 1020

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
RSG estimates that the Project would provide financial benefits to the City in the form of new site -specific tax revenues generated from the Project on a recurring basis, less any revenue already generated from the site.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
In this Fiscal Impact Analysis, RSG projected the total revenues derived from the improvements, resident activity in the community, and the business operations on the Site.

Annual net new tax revenues are the estimated recurring site -specific taxes and one-time fees generated by the proposed development less the costs of providing municipal services to the new development.

Total revenues are calculated as the amount generated by the Project at the end of the 27 -year period, which consists of a 2 -year construction period and 25 years of operation.

RSG anticipates that the City may realize material increases in the following impacts:
• Property Tax
• Property Tax In -Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees
• Business License Fees
• Sales and Transaction Taxes
• Utility Taxes

FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY
The net new tax revenue presented in the forecast begins with the 2 -year construction period which spans three fiscal years, from FY 2025-26 through FY 2027-28. This is followed by a 25 -year operating forecast from FY 2028-29 through FY 2052-53. In the first year of stabilization, once the Project is fully built and leased, the estimated net new revenues generated by the project are estimated to be $473,850.

Over the 27 -year projection period the total cumulative new revenues will be $15.8 million ($7.9 million in 2024 dollars at a 5 percent discount rate). RSG's implied discount rate is based on our analysis of recent municipal debt costs to provide a reasonable proxy for discounting tax revenues.

Table 3 provides a summary by revenue source of the net new revenues to the City over the 2 -year construction period and the 25 -year projection period. The analysis incorporates current market conditions and assumptions, as provided by the Developer. Should the scope of the project, schedule, or market conditions change, the fiscal impacts projected in this Report may be different. 5 1021

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
Table 3 Construction Period + 25 -Year Recurring Tax Forecast Year
Property Taxes Sales and Transaction Taxes4
Property Tax In- Business
General Fund
Library and
LLMD
EIFD
Lieu of VLF License Fees Bradley Burns
(City)
Measure U
Utility Tax
Total Tax
Revenues
Remediation 2024-25
CY1 2025-26 No taxes produced in Construction Year 1
CY2 2026-27 $ 7,911 $ 8,036 $ 11,051 $ 8,795 $ 35,794
CY3 2027-28 63,324 64,322 88,460 70,362 $ 1,286 $ 5,319 $ 5,319 $ 8,777 307,168 1 2028-29 80,392 81,659 112,303 87,952 1,884 27,963 27,963 53,749 473,866 2 2029-30 82,021 83,313 114,578 89,711 1,902 28,802 28,802 54,835 483,964 3 2030-31 83,682 85,000 116,898 91,505 1,921 29,666 29,666 55,942 494,281 4 2031-32 85,376 86,721 119,265 93,336 1,940 30,556 30,556 57,072 504,822 5 2032-33 87,104 88,477 121,679 95,202 1,960 31,473 31,473 58,226 515,593 6 2033-34 88,867 90,267 124,141 97,106 1,980 32,417 32,417 59,403 526,598 7 2034-35 90,665 92,093 126,653 99,048 2,001 33,389 33,389 60,604 537,843 8 2035-36 92,499 93,956 129,215 101,029 2,022 34,391 34,391 61,830 549,333 9 2036-37 94,369 95,856 131,828 103,050 2,045 35,423 35,423 63,081 561,074 10 2037-38 96,277 97,794 134,493 105,111 2,068 36,485 36,485 64,357 573,070 11 2038-39 98,223 99,771 137,211 107,213 2,091 37,580 37,580 65,660 585,330 12 2039-40 100,208 101,787 139,984 109,357 2,116 38,707 38,707 66,990 597,858 13 2040-41 102,233 103,844 142,813 111,545 2,141 39,869 39,869 68,347 610,659 14 2041-42 104,298 105,942 145,698 113,775 2,167 41,065 41,065 69,732 623,741 15 2042-43 106,405 108,081 148,640 116,051 2,193 42,297 42,297 71,146 637,109 16 2043-44 108,553 110,264 151,642 118,372 2,220 43,566 43,566 72,589 650,771 17 2044-45 110,745 112,490 154,704 120,739 2,249 44,872 44,872 74,061 664,733 18 2045-46 112,980 114,761 157,826 123,154 2,278 46,219 46,219 75,564 679,001 19 2046-47 115,261 117,077 161,012 125,617 2,308 47,605 47,605 77,099 693,583 20 2047-48 117,586 119,439 164,261 128,130 2,339 49,033 49,033 78,665 708,486 21 2048-49 119,959 121,849 167,575 130,692 2,370 50,504 50,504 80,263 723,716 22 2049-50 122,378 124,307 170,955 133,306 2,403 52,020 52,020 81,895 739,283 23 2050-51 124,846 126,814 174,403 135,972 2,437 53,580 53,580 83,561 755,192 24 2051-52 127,364 129,371 177,919 138,692 2,471 55,187 55,187 85,261 771,453 25 2052-53 129,932 131,979 181,506 141,465 2,507 56,843 56,843 86,997 788,073 Grand Total2 $ 2,653,458 $ 2,695,268 $ 3,706,711 $ 2,896,290 $ 55,297 $ 1,024,831 $ 1,024,831 $ 1,735,705 $ 15,792,392 NPV 5.0% $ 1,320,892 $ 1,341,706 $ 1,845,203 $ 1,443,065 $ 29,380 $ 513,329 $ 513,329 $ 890,156 $ 7,897,060 Inflation Rate3 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 4.81%
'Summary of the first 25 years after construction has been completed following the close of Construction Year 3, in Summer 2027. `Grand Total represents the total revenues produced in the 3 -year construction period and the 25 years afterward. 'Inflation rate projected at 2% for property related revenues. Sales and business related revenues increase at 3% the average rate of increase over the past 5 years as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles/ Orange County area.
°Sales and Transaction Taxes for the City (Bradley Burns) + Measure U (2018), are assumed for 2027-28 following issuance of the final certificate of occupancy. 6 1022

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024

RECURRING REVENUES

PROPERTY TAX
The City receives a portion of ad valorem property taxes to pay for the cost of providing municipal services for General Fund expenses, Library District operations, and maintenance of street lighting. According to the Orange County Auditor -Controller, the City's General Fund share of the FY 2023-24 property taxes within the Project's tax area is approximately 13.40 percent of the one percent property tax levy. The City also collects property taxes to pay for costs associated with the Placentia Library District and Street Lighting District amounting to approximately 3.04 percent and 3.76 percent of the one percent levy, respectively.

RSG's forecast of property taxes is based on the anticipated amount of construction that may be completed by the January 1 lien date. RSG's projections do not include any potential Supplemental Roll assessments during the construction period which may increase the amount of property taxes captured during construction.

Placentia EIFD
Separately, the City benefits from growth in property taxes to fund the EIFD created in partnership with the County of Orange to fund capital projects and economic development within specified subareas throughout the City. In 2019, the City established the EIFD, which gives a maximum of 50 percent of the City General Fund and 50 percent of the County General Fund's property tax share to infrastructure improvements within specific non-contiguous regions in south Placentia.

Therefore, of the City's 13.40 percent tax share, one-half - or 6.70 percent - is allocated to the EIFD, while the remaining 6.70 percent stays in the City's General Fund. The EIFD also receives 46 percent of the 5.79 percent Orange County General Fund property tax share, which amounts to approximately 2.66 percent. The total share of property taxes collected by the EIFD is 9.36 percent. In total, the City and its subordinate districts collect around 22.87 percent of the one percent property tax levy across all property tax revenues.

Total Property Taxes to Placentia
Table 4 below summarizes the property tax shares of each of the tax fund revenue Table 4: Property Tax Share Summary
City of Placentia - General Fund

13.40% less 50% EIFD allocation
Lighting District
Library District
EIFD
50% of City General Fund (13.40%)
46% of County General Fund (5.79%)
Total

6.70%

3.04%

3.76%

9.36%

6.70%

2.66%

22.86%
Source: Orange County Auditor Controller, City
EIFD Infrastructure Financing Plan
of Placentia
areas.
7 1023

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
RSG used an assumed construction cost of $475,000 per unit, or $117,800,000 total based on RSG's experience of current costs for this type of construction. Construction is projected to begin in Summer 2025 with the final certificate of occupancy issued in late 2027.

The City is not expected to receive any net new property taxes until 2026-27 given the added value of the first construction year (2025) is reassessed on the following fiscal year's tax roll. Based on the existing assessed value of the property and assumed development costs and schedule, the City is expected to generate approximately $27,000 in new tax revenues in FY 2026-274. This amount includes $7,911 in City General Fund dollars, $8,036 for the Library and Lighting Districts, and $11,051 for EIFD allocations.

In FY 2028-29 (year 1 after Project completion), the City is expected to generate approximately $274,350 in new property tax revenues, based on the full added value of the completed Project. Assuming property taxes will increase at a rate of two percent each year after completion and no resale occurs, the total property tax revenues allocated to the City would be approximately $9.1 million over the construction and 25 -year projection period, or $4.5 million in 2024 dollars.

Property tax revenues are presented in Table 5. For more detailed projections, see Appendix 1.

Table 5: Property Tax Revenue
Current Property Valuation
Proposed Development Cost
Net New Value
$ 1,475,507
117,800,000
$ 116,324,493
City General Fund Property Tax Rate (less EIFD) 6.70%
Proposed Tax Revenue Year 1 80,392
Subsidiary Dist. Tax Rate (Library and Lighting) 6.80%
Proposed Tax Revenue Year 1 81,659
EIFD Tax Rate 9.36%
Proposed Tax Revenue Year 1 112,303
Annual Net New Revenue Year 1 (2028-29) $ 274,355
Cumulative Net New Revenue (2024-2053) $ 9,055,437
Cumulative Net New Revenue, 2024 Dollars $ 4,507,801
Source: Orange County Auditor Controller, Orange County Assessor, RSG Inc

PROPERTY TAX IN -LIEU OF MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSES FEES
Established in 1935, the Motor Vehicle License Fee ("VLF") is an annual tax on vehicle ownership. The State of California ("State") collects VLF annually once vehicles are registered, and the revenues historically have been distributed to cities and counties based on a statutory formula.

During the State's budget crisis in 2004, about 90 percent of each city's VLF revenue was replaced with property tax revenue, and cities began to receive an allocation of property tax from the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ("ERAF"). The ERAF allocations are generally equal to what each incorporated city would have received previously under the VLF allocation formula. 4 The estimated property taxes are based on the Developer's total construction budget. 8 1024

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
Under current law, the property tax in -lieu of VLF revenue increases based on assessed value growth within an agency's jurisdiction. For this fiscal impact analysis, the estimated net new revenues are based on changes in the assessed value created by the Project.

Considering the Project would increase the assessed value of the City, the City General Fund will experience a corresponding increase in PTIL revenues once the Project is developed. To estimate the additional amount of PTIL revenue, RSG utilized the total estimated development cost as a proxy for the Project's assessed value under the assumption that the Orange County Assessor would reassess the Site based on development cost, which is estimated to be $117.8 million.

The current assessed value of the site from the Orange County Assessor is $1.5 million, and when multiplied by the City's PTIL, amounts to $1,102 of PTIL revenue generated from the site. The Project is expected to add approximately $8,800 in net new PTIL in FY 2026-27 once construction is completed and reassessed on the tax roll in 2025. Following this trend, the net new PTIL in FY 2028-29 would be approximately $87,950 based on the total estimated Project development cost. Assuming a 2 percent inflation rate of property taxes, the Project would generate approximately $2.9 million in cumulative net new property tax in -lieu of VLF revenues, or $1.4 million in 2024 dollars as depicted in Table 6.

Table 6: Motor Vehicle License In -Lieu Revenue
Current Property Valuation
Proposed Development Cost
Net New Value
Current Property Tax In -Lieu of VLF (2023-24)
Annual Net New Revenue Year 1 (2028-29)
Cumulative Net New Revenue (2024-2053)
Cumulative Net New Revenue, 2024 Dollars
$ 1,475,507
117,800,000
$ 116,324,493
6,706,892
$ 87,952
$ 2,896,290
$ 1,443,065
Sources: Orange County Auditor Controller, CaliforniaCityFinance.com, RSG Inc

SALES AND TRANSACTION TAXES
The generation of sales and transaction tax revenue is expected for the City due to the construction of additional retail square footage and anticipated spending by new residents residing in the proposed 248 residential units. This section describes the methodology and assumptions for both sources of taxable commercial activity.

From taxable sales transactions, the City receives one (1) percent of gross sales through the Bradley Burns Sales Tax and one percent coming from the City's Measure U (2018) initiative.5 Measure U establishes a separate Transactions and Use Tax in addition to the existing Bradley Burns tax rate. Transactions and Use Taxes are taxes levied on the gross receipts of any retailer in a city. These taxes can only be imposed through a voter approved ballot initiative set up by the governing board of the City. Section 3.32.101 of the Placentia Municipal Code states that "there shall be levied and collected a transaction and use tax at a rate of one percent." Per the Ordinance, the Measure U Tax shall continue without a sunset date, unless terminated by the voters. In state law, the name "Transactions and Use Tax" is used to differentiate between the Bradley Burns levies for the city, county, and state, called a "Sales and Use Tax," and one passed by the voters of the city or district. 5 Local sales tax rate is 8.75% and there are no sunset dates for Measure U. 9 1025

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
• Project -Based Retail Activity: The Project includes 2,703 square feet of retail space, which is expected to generate sales and transaction tax revenues for the City's General Fund. Based on RSG's experience with similar mix -use projects regarding the volume of taxable sales for various retail functions, RSG utilized an estimate of $350 of sales per square foot in 2024 which is estimated to increase at a rate of 3 percent per year. This assumption is subject to change once the developer knows who the tenant will be and their corresponding retail activity. Based on these assumptions, RSG estimates the Project's commercial tenant(s) would generate approximately $532,394 of taxable sales in FY 2027-28. This amount is discounted by 50 percent to account for a ramp -up period of the retail operations. Once the retail space is fully operational in FY 2028-29, their gross sales are expected to be $1.1 million.
• Resident Consumer Spending: The City is expected to gain added sales and transaction tax revenue due to new consumer spending from the completion of the 248 new residential units.

Realistically, not all Project residents may choose to make their taxable goods purchases at stores in Placentia, so RSG estimates the percentage of new consumer spending to occur within the City. Utilizing data produced from CoStar on the percentage of existing retail and commercial square footage within a 10 -minute drive time radius from the Project, the analysis assumes approximately 18 percent of the transactions from the new households created by the Project will remain in Placentia. RSG's calculations also account for a gradual lease up period beginning in FY 2027-28 upon Project completion. In that first year of leasing, the project is assumed to reach 30 percent capacity, with full occupancy, less a 5 percent vacancy rate by FY 2028-29. Based on these assumptions, RSG estimates that new residents may generate approximately $1.7 million of taxable sales within Placentia once max occupancy (95 percent units leased) is achieved in FY 2028-29.

Combining the Project -based and consumer -based taxable sales activity assumptions, the annual sales and transaction tax revenues are projected to be approximately $55,900 in FY 28-29 once the Project is fully stabilized. This consists of $27,950 from the Bradley Burns Sales and Use Tax and $27,950 from the Measure U Transaction and Use Tax. Over the 27 -year forecast period, the retail and residential spending sales are estimated to generate a cumulative total new tax revenues of $1 million each for the Bradley Burns and Measure U taxes ($513,300 in 2024 dollars each).

Table 7 below summarizes the total sales and transaction tax revenues.

Table 7: Sales & Transaction Tax Revenues
Annual Sales Receipts Generated in Placentia Year 1 (2028-29) $ 2,796,305 Cumulative Retail Sales 1,096,731
Cumulative Residential Sales 1,699,574
Bradley Burns Tax
Measure U (2018)
Annual Net New Revenue Year 1 (2028-29)
Cumulative Net New Revenue (2024-2053)*
Cumulative Net New Revenue, 2024 Dollars*
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, RSG Inc.
*Bradley Burns and Measure U combined

1.00% 27,963

1.00% 27,963
$ 55,926
$ 2,049,662
$ 1,026,659
10 1026

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024

BUSINESS LICENSE FEE
The City imposes an annual business license fee on all retail and rental property businesses within Placentia.
• For rental properties over three units, there is a fee of $33 for the first four units plus $5 for each additional unit, per year. With 248 units total, the property will contribute $1,253 in rental property license fees per year once the project is built.
• The City also charges a minimum fee of $33 for the first year for all new businesses opening within the City. For each year after opening, businesses must pay $33 plus $.55 cents per $1,000 of gross receipts in excess of $10,000.

To calculate the retail business license fees, RSG utilized an estimate of $350 in sales per square foot generated in 2024 which is estimated to increase at a rate of 3 percent per year. Based on the assumed total sales per retail square foot, RSG estimates the retail component of the Project will generate $631 in retail business license fees in FY 2028-29 once the retail space is fully operational. As shown in Table 8 below, RSG estimates the Project can generate about $55,300 in cumulative business license fees over 28 years ($29,400 in 2024 dollars). Once the commercial tenant is identified and operational, actual taxable sales may be higher or lower.

Table 8: Business License Fees
Rental Property License Fee:1
Total number of units
Annual Rental Property License Fees
Retail Business License Fee: 2
Retail square feet
Assumed sales per retail square foot (FY 2023-24)
Annual Business License Fees Opening Year (FY 2027-28)
Annual Business License Fees Year 1 (FY 2028-29)
Cumulative Net New Revenue (2024-2053)
Cumulative Net New Revenue, 2024 Dollars
248
$ 1,253
2,703
350
33 631
$ 55,297
$ 29,380
1 Rental Property License Fee Formula: ($33 first 4 units) -F($5 x additional unit) `Business License Fee Formula: $33 for the first year then $33 plus $.55 cents per $1,000 gross receipts in excess of $10,000
Sources: Placentia Municipal Code

UTILITY USER TAX
Per section 3.28.020-040 of the City's municipal code, the City assesses a utility user tax of 3.5 percent on communication services, electricity, and gas usage within Placentia. Similar to the Measure U transaction and use tax, the utility user taxes shall remain as is unless otherwise amended by voters.

Residential utility costs were estimated per household with data from ESRI Business Analyst's House and Home Expenditure Report for 2023. Residential utility expenditures were assumed to be: $210 per month for communication services, $213 for electricity, and $65 for gas. This amounts to $5,854 annually in 2023 and reflects an assumed 2 percent annual inflation rate. RSG also assumed 30 percent 11 1027

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
occupancy in the first year of lease for FY 2027-28, with full occupancy, less a 5 percent vacancy rate, achieved in FY 28-29.

To account for the 2,703 square feet of retail space, RSG used US Energy Information Administration ("EIA") estimates to extrapolate commercial utility expenses. Retail establishments in the western region average around $1.51 per square foot in energy expenses while restaurants average $4.62 per square foot. Since the nature of the retail tenant is unknown, RSG used an average of these two amounts for an expense of $3.07 per square foot. RSG also used the percent change in Consumer Price Index ("CPI") for all utilities in the Los Angeles region over the last 10 years, to determine the appropriate inflation rate to use for the 27 -year projection. The calculated inflation rate is 4.81 %.

Based on these assumptions, RSG estimates utility user tax revenues generated by the residential and commercial portions of the Project will be $53,750 annually at stabilization. This equates to $1.7 million in taxes over the full forecast period ($890,150 in 2024 dollars).

Table 9 below details the Utility User Tax at buildout.

Table 9: Utility User Tax Revenue
Energy Expenditures per Household (2023)
Households (95% occupancy)
Annual Residential Energy Expenses
Energy Expenditure per Retail Sq Ft
Retail Sq Ft
Annual Retail Energy Expenses
City Tax Rate
Annual Net New Revenue Year 1 (2028-29)
Cumulative Net New Revenue (2024-2053)
Cumulative Net New Revenue, 2024 Dollars
5,854
236
1,379,096

3.07 2,703
8,285

3.5%
$ 53,749
$ 1,735,705
$ 890,156
Source: US Energy Information Administration, RSG, Inc., ESRI BAO 12 1028

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

METHODOLOGY
In this Economic Impact Analysis, RSG utilized the economic impact software IMPLAN to estimate the total direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts (jobs and economic output) that will result from the proposed Project development.

IMPLAN is an input-output analysis modeling software that measures the relationship between a given set of demands for final goods and services and the inputs needed to satisfy those demands based on specific industry data and economic trends for the local region. Different activities generate different amounts of employment or economic value and similarly have varying indirect and induced impacts on the larger regional economy. IMPLAN can be used to measure the varying impacts from both temporary activities, such as construction, and ongoing operations that will be generated by the new businesses located in the Project. RSG analyzed these temporary and permanent impacts using the most recent data year available (2022) for Orange County, adjusted for 2024 dollars.

IMPLAN breaks down the resulting economic impacts into three categories: direct, indirect, and induced. • Direct Effects: Direct effects that occur on the project site resulting from development costs and operational sales revenue.
• Indirect Effects: Changes in sales, jobs, and/or income within the businesses that supply goods and services to the Project. Indirect effects do not occur directly on the project -site but are an indirect effect on surrounding or related businesses.
• Induced Effects: Regional changes resulting from additional spending earned either directly or indirectly from the Project.

For example, if a retail clothing store is being built, IMPLAN will determine how many direct temporary construction jobs will be needed to build the store, based on the total construction budget. IMPLAN will also project the number of indirect jobs generated from any expenditures on goods and services by a developer during construction such as building materials. Finally, IMPLAN tabulates any new employment created through the increased expenditures on goods and services by the direct and indirect employees generated by the Project as induced jobs.

Full -Time Equivalency ("FTE") employment is used in economic impact projections to determine how many full-time employees would be derived from a total headcount of full and part-time workers. This is done by taking the total anticipated workable hours and dividing that into the number of FTE employees.

It is more informative to use FTE as it relays the employment impacts by aggregate hours worked rather than by individuals working.

IMPLAN also provides the resulting labor income, increases to economic output from new jobs, and spending caused by the Project.

ANALYSIS
IMPLAN's analysis of temporary construction impacts is based on the assumed Project development cost of $117.8 million. Whereas permanent impacts from the annual operation of the apartment and retail 13 1029

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
developments are based on the estimated operating income from those Project components. Table 10 presents the major economic impact findings.
• Aggregate Construction Period Employment: During the 2 -year construction period beginning FY 2025-26 and ending FY 2027-28, the Project is estimated to generate 875 direct jobs, 66 indirect (business -to -business) jobs, and 257 induced (consumer spending) jobs. • Aggregate Construction Period Economic Im3act: Including the direct investment of $117,800,000 million in project costs as well additional indirect and induced economic activity generated due to the Project's construction, the total economic impact of the construction of the Project is estimated to be $182.9 million over the two-year period.
• Annual Permanent Employment: Based on the estimated operating income generated by the retail and residential components, IMPLAN estimates the Project would produce 18 permanent direct jobs, 3 indirect jobs, and 4 induced jobs.'
• Annual Permanent Economic Impact: Based on the economic activity, including jobs and business and consumer spending, the Project is estimated to create an annual economic impact of $9 million in Orange County.

Table 10: Employment and Economic Outputs: Construction and Permanent Impacts Construction Impacts Direct Indirect Induced
Employment 875 66 257
Economic Output $ 117,800,000 $ 14,776,426 $ 50,290,450 Permanent Impacts Direct Indirect Induced
New Employment 18 3 4
Economic Output $ 7,609,500 $ 715,165 $ 712,983
Total
1,198
$ 182,866,877
Total
25 $ 9,037,648
Sources: 1MPLAN, US Census Bureau, U.S. Business Reporter, RSG Inc. 61t is worth noting that IMPLAN returns all jobs created in the County not just those that will result in the City. 14 1030

Appendix 1: Property Taxes
Assessed Value Forecast
Pro
oerty Tax Forecast
Existing New
FIscal Year Valuations Construction}
Total in crernental
Value
Total Property City General
Tax Fund#
1% 6.70%
Library and
Lighting

6.80%
Placentia
EIFD

9.36%
Total City
Property
Taxes
Currant 2023-24
Ramediation
CY 11
CY 2
CY 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 2024-25
2025-26
2026-27
2027-2B
202E-29
2029-30
2030-31
2031-32
2032-33
2033-34
2034-35
2035-36
2036-37
2037-38
2038.39
2039.40
2040-41
2041-42
2042-43
204344
2044-45
2045-46
2046-47
2047-4B
2048-49
2049-50
2050-51
2051-52
2052-53
Total
HPV 5.0%
1nffaJ o Rote
$ 1.415.507 5 f475,507
1,505,017
1,535,117
1,565,820
13,612,736
97,994,191
123,985,275
126,464,980
128,994,280
131,574,165
134,205,649
136,889,762
139,627,557
142,420,108
145,268,510
148,173,880
151,137,358
154,160,105
157,243,307
160,388,174
163,595,937
166,867,856
170,205,213
173,609,317
177,081,503
180,623,134
184,235,596
187,920,308
191,678,714
195,512,289
11,780,000
82,460,000
23,560,000
$ 117,800,000
1,505,017
1,535,117
13,345,820 $ 11,810,702 $
96,072,736 94,537,619
121, 554,191 120,019,073
123,985,275 122.450,157
126,464,980 124,929, 863
128,994,230 127,459,162
131, 574,165 130,039,048
134,205,649 132,670, 531
136,889,762 135,354,644
139,627, 557 138,092,440
142,420,108 140,334,991
145,268, 510 143,733,393
148,173,880 146,638,763
151,137,35B 149,602,241
154,160,105 152,624,988
157,243, 307 155, 708,190
160,388,174 158, 353,056
163,595,937 162, 060,820
166,867,856 165, 332,738
170,205,213 163, 670,095
173,609, 317 172, 074,200
177,081, 503 175, 546,386
180,623,134 179,038,016
184,235, 596 132,700,479
187,920,30B 136,385,191
191,678,714 190,143,597
195,512,2B9 193,977,171
118,107
945,376
1,200,191
1,224,502
1,249,299
1,274,592
1,300,390
1,326,705
1,353,546
1,380,924
1,408,850
1,437,334
1,466,388
1,496,022
1,526,250
1,557,082
1,588,531
1,620,608
1,653,327
1,686,7.01
1,720,742
1,755,464
1,790,880
1,827,005
1,863,852
1,901,436
1,939,772
$ 7,911
63,324
80,392
82,021
83,682
85,376
87,104
88,867
90,665
92,499
94,369
96,277
98223
100,208
102,233
104298
105,405
108,553
110,745
112,980
115,261
117,586
119,9.59
122,378
124,846
127,364
129,932
.5

3.036
64,322
81,659
83,313
85,000
86,721
88,477
90,267
92,093
93,956
95,856
97,794
99,771
101,787
103,344
105, 942
103,031
110,264
112,490
114,761
117,077
119,439
121,849
124.307
126.814
129,371
131,979
$ 11,051
88,460
112,303
114,578
116,898
119,265
121,679
124,141
126,653
129,215
131,828
134,493
137,211
139,984
142,813
145,698
148,640
151,642
154,704
157,826
161,012
164,261
167,575
170,955
174,403
177,919
181,506
$ 26,998
216,106
274,355
279,912
285,580
291,362
297,260
303275
309,411
315,669
322,053
328,564
335,205
341,980
348,889
355,937
363,126
370,459
377,938
385,567
393,349
401,286
409,382
417,640
426,063
434,654
443,417
$ 39,613,876 $ 2,653,458 $ 2,695,2GB $ 3,706,711 $ 9,055,437 $ 19,719,805 $ 1,320,892 1 1,341,706 $ 1,845,203 $ 4,507,801 2% 2% 2%
Sources_ Orange Courtly Auditor Contr &r; Orange County Assessor. RSG •1rrn 'Consln,ction it. expected to start Summer 2425 and lake Iwo Calendar years to complete. 2Total assessed value of parcels sourced From ParcelQuest Natal assumed construction cost based or1 developer and local comparable projects 4City tax aLrca tinn sourced from the Orange Cbunly Apporlionmerlt Repent 1031

Orangethorpe Ave Mixed Use, Placentia, California
Fiscal & Economic Impact Report
August 2024
I
Source: Architectural Set
Appendix 2: Orangethorpe Submittal Set 05/22/2024
NOT A PART y ,
s
16 1032

Andrew Gonzales
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Gilad Ganish
Monday, August 19, 2024 7:56 PM
Andrew Gonzales; Joseph Lambert
Gilad Ganish
Blackwood - Placentia & Orangethorpe [RK Engineering]
RK20103.pdf
Follow up
Flagged

Hi Andrew and Joe -
Here is a supplemental letter from RK Engineering regarding move-in/move-out, trash, and stuff like that.

Thanks!
Gilad
Gilad Ganish
Blackwood Real Estate
1000 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 510-8255 Direct
(949) 625-9202 Fax
[email protected]

RECEIVED
AU& 19 2924

PLANNING
1 R1C
engineering
group, inc.
traffic engineering & design
transportation planning
parking
acoustical engineering
air quality & ghg
August 19, 2024
Mr. Gilad Ganish
ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC.
2881 East La Cresta Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806
Subject: Supplemental Letter for the NEC Orangethorpe Avenue & Mixed Use Project Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, dated April 26, 2024, City of Placentia, CA Dear Mr. Ganish:

Introduction
RK ENGINEERING GROUP INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this supplemental letter for the proposed NEC Orangethorpe Avenue & Mixed -Use Project (hereinafter referred to as "project"). The purpose of this letter is to clarify information on move-in/move-out operations, waste management operations, and how vehicle traffic is not expected to spill onto Orangethorpe based on findings and analysis documented in the NEC Orangethorpe Avenue & Mixed Use Project Revised Traffic Impact Analysis, dated April 26, 2024.

Move -In and Move -Out Operations
Residents moving in or out of the proposed project are expected to utilize the designated moving stage area that is located on the southeast corner of the site, accessible via the Orangethorpe Avenue driveway. This area will operate by appointment only, ensuring a limited number of vehicles on -site to minimize conflicts and facilitate smooth, efficient move -in and move -out processes. Upon scheduling an appointment, on -site management will provide details about truck size limitations.

Residents are expected to utilize move -in trucks suitable for items equivalent to those found in a 1 - bedroom home or a 2 -bedroom apartment, approximately 22.6 feet in length with a cargo box bed around 15 feet long. On -site management will also guide residents on accessing the moving stage area. After entering via the Orangethorpe Avenue driveway, moving trucks will proceed directly to the designated area, bypassing the commercial parking spaces.

In a scenario where a moving truck enters the Orangethorpe Avenue driveway but is unable to pull into the designated moving stage area (likely due to lack of an appointment and the area being occupied by another truck), the moving truck would simply queue at the entrance to the staging 1034

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC.

RK20103 / JN:2984-2024-01

Page 2 ends

area temporarily until on -site management can assist, or use the hammerhead to exit and come back later. It is not expected for vehicle(s) to ever queue back onto Orangethorpe Avenue.

Waste Management Operations
Solid waste and recycling bins for the residential portion of the project are located on Level 1 of the parking structure in the trash room, which serves as the terminus for trash and recycling chutes as well as the collection area. According to the waste management plan detailed in Section 9.6.1 of the traffic study, trash collection bins will be moved from the trash room to the staging area where disposal by trash trucks will take place. The trash trucks will follow a designated route: entering via the Orangethorpe Avenue driveway, proceeding to the turn -around area, parking near the trash staging area, and then performing the trash pick-up. Upon completion, the trucks will exit the property via the Orangethorpe Avenue driveway. As shown in Exhibit A, based on the project's waste management plan, trash trucks can efficiently navigate the Orangethorpe Avenue driveway, execute a two -point turn at the designated area, and exit the site without any circulation issues.

Spillover onto Orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue The traffic study performed a review of on -site stacking distance provided to the Orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue driveways. As detailed in Section 9.4 of the traffic study, the Orangethorpe Avenue driveway, which will only serve a small amount of traffic, does not have a gate blocking the entrance to the parking area. There is adequate space for the minimal vehicles to enter this driveway without stacking back onto Orangethorpe Avenue. For the Placentia Avenue driveway, there is approximately 170 feet of stacking distance from Placentia Avenue until vehicles enter the parking structure. Additionally, while there is a gate within the parking structure for residents, this gate is located further inside the parking structure. Once a vehicle enters the structure, there are several ungated parking spaces designated for the public/retail portion of the project. This provides additional stacking distance for residents entering the gate, in addition to the previously mentioned 170 -foot driveway throat. As such, there appears to be adequate space for vehicles to enter this driveway without stacking back onto Placentia Avenue. Both driveway study intersections are forecasted to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under all analyzed analysis scenarios.

RK
engineering
group, inc.
rkengineer.com
1035

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC.

RK20103 / JN:2984-2024-01

Page 3 ends

Conclusions
RK appreciates the opportunity to work with ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC. and the City of Placentia. If you have any questions regarding this letter or would like further review, please do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 474-0809.

Respectfully Submitted,
RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

Justin Tucker, P.E., T.E.

Associate Principal
Attachments:

RK
engineering
group, inc.
rkengineer.com
1036

Exhibits
1037

Exhibi M ,
Waste Management Plan and Trash Truck Turning Templa o
?Dv
13 RETAIL
2703,SQ, FT.
/Dgl. VOL.
1-11
LEVEL 1
I/ 52 STALLS

TRASH/RECYCLING

CHUTE TERMINUS AND

COLLECTION ROOM

PARKING
STRUCK w.a
a.

TRU E
la
x172.'
I
I
6' WIDE I I I I

OVERHEAD DOOR
jiioo?i�ininiiiioaiiiir��

TRASH BINS CARTED

TO DESIGNATED
AREA

NOT A PART
6' WIDE
OVERHEAD DOOR \

TRASH BINS TEMPORARILY
% STAGED WITHIN ROOM AWAITING
4f WASTE TRUCK ARRIVAL
15' WIDE

OVERHEAD DOOR I /

ONCE WASTE TRUCK IS IN

PLACE, BINS ARE MOVED
° HERE FOR OVERHEAD

DUMPING OPERATIONS
orC
Legend:

O
N
O
Ln
•
—7-
15'-0 I/ �4
LL J
x 25'-0" jr

TRASH TRUCK TURN -AROUND TRASH TRUCK TURNING

SANITATION TRUCK RADIUS
HAMMERHEAD TURN AREA 14'

MINIMUM VERTICAL

CLEARANCE
=.11.=0=0=9"F=.1
JL
JLk=0= =
L-JL
I I
LJ
MIL

TRASH BINS

TRASH TRUCK WITH BIN

STRINGER TRUCK ROUTE

RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM(S)
2984-2024-01
ORANGETHORPE / PLACENTIA MIXED USE PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, City of Placentia RI(
engineering
group, inc.

Andrew Gonzales
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Gilad Ganish
Monday, August 19, 2024 7:54 PM
Andrew Gonzales; Joseph Lambert
Gilad Ganish
Blackwood - Placentia & Orangethorpe [LLG]
LLG - Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed -Use Parking Demand Analysis Memorandum - Placentia, 08-19-24.pdf
Follow up
Flagged

Hi Andrew and Joe -
Here is a parking study that LLG completed.

Thanks!
Gilad
Gilad Ganish
Blackwood Real Estate
1000 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 510-8255 Direct
(949) 625-9202 Fax
[email protected]

RECEIVED
AUt 1 9 2024

PLANNING
1 LLG

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Gilad Ganish
Orangethorpe Investment Partners LLC
Date: August 19, 2024
From:

Keil D. Maberry, P.E.

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
LLG Ref: 2.24.4812.1
Subject:

Parking Demand Analysis for the Proposed Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed -Use Project — Placentia
This memorandum has been prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) to provide a parking demand analysis related to the proposed Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed -Use project at 777 Orangethorpe Avenue in the City of Placentia (the "Project"). The Project proposes the development of 248 multi -family residential units and 2,703 square feet (SF) of ground floor retail within a five -story building with a total proposed parking supply of 335 parking spaces. Figure 1, attached, presents the proposed site plan prepared by Architects Orange. Specifically, the proposed apartment project will include 44 studio dwelling units, 136 one bedroom dwelling units, and 68 two bedroom dwelling units totaling 316 bedrooms with a proposed residential parking supply of 320 parking spaces within a six -level attached parking structure plus four (4) leasing office surfaces parking spaces and eleven (11) retail parking spaces (4 surface parking spaces and 7 parking structure spaces) for a total of 335 parking spaces. Based on the proposed 320 on -site residential parking spaces for the 248 dwelling units and 316 bedrooms, results in a parking supply ratio of 1.29 parking spaces per dwelling unit or 1.01 parking spaces per bedroom.

It should be noted that while the eleven (11) retail parking spaces are not designated to be shared as part of this parking demand analysis, many of the seven (7) retail parking spaces within the parking structure will be shared parking with the guest parking demand given that the retail time -of -day parking profile and the guest time - of -day parking profile peak at different times of the day. Furthermore, the retail parking demand is likely to be reduced by internal capture from the apartment resident.

The proposed Project will provide approximately 50 spaces per level with the following breakdown per floor:
➢ Pt Floor: 52 guest spaces (includes 11 compact spaces and 6 EV spaces) ➢ 2nd Floor: 55 resident spaces (includes 11 compact spaces and 6 EV spaces) ➢ 3rd Floor: 55 resident spaces (includes 11 compact spaces and 6 EV spaces) ➢ 4th Floor: 55 resident spaces (includes 11 compact spaces and 6 EV spaces) ➢ 5th Floor: 55 resident spaces (includes 11 compact spaces and 6 EV spaces) ➢ 6th Floor: 55 resident spaces (includes 11 compact spaces and 6 EV spaces) N:\4800\2244812 - Orangethorpe Mixed -Use, Placentia\Report\4812 - Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed -Use Parking Demand Analysis Memorandum - Placentia, 08-19-24.doc 2 Executive Circle
Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92614
949.825.6175 r
949.825.5939 F
www.11gengineers.com
Pasadena
Irvine
San Diego
David S. Shender, PE
John A. Boarman, PE
Richard E. Barretto, PE
Keil D. Maberry, PE
KC Yellapu, PE
Dave Roseman, PE
Shankar Ramakris" — °C
An LG2WB Company 11040

Gilad Ganish
August 19, 2024

Page 2 ends

Furthermore, reserved resident spaces will be unbundled and allocated during leasing, which will generally include one (1) parking space per dwelling unit plus an additional one (1) parking space to half of the two bedroom units, if requested. In addition, as part of the parking supply program, a total of 66 compact parking spaces will be provided, which is appropriate since the compact spaces will be at least 8' wide x 16' deep and allocated to only a minimal number of guest spaces (11 spaces on 1St Floor), that will likely only turn over once or twice per day and consist of less than 25% of the total parking supply (19.7%).

Table 1 summarizes the proposed parking demand allocation for the residential component of Project based on similar residential projects developed by the Developer.

Table 1
Residential Parking Demand Summary
Project Description
Size
Recommended
Parking Ratio
Spaces
Orangethorpe Avenue Apartments
• Studio Units
44 units

1.0 spaces per unit
44 • One Bedroom Units
136 units

1.0 spaces per unit
136
• Two Bedroom Units
68 units

1.5 spaces per unit
102
• Guest Parking
248 units

0.15 spaces per unit
38 Total Residential Parking Demand
320
Focusing to the predominant land use in the Project, multi -family residential, the following three methods were utilized in this analysis to justify the recommended parking demand and therefore the parking supply provided for the multi -family housing component of the proposed Project:
a. Comparative Method #1 (using industry and jurisdictional standards) b. Comparative Method #2 (using multi -family residential ratios approved for projects that have not yet been built)
c. Comparative Method #3 (using empirical ratios derived from a parking demand survey recently conducted in May 2023 at 580 Anton Boulevard Apartments)
LLG
N:\4800\2244812 - Orangethorpe Mixed -Use, Placentia\Report\4812 - Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed -Use Parking Demand Analysis Memorandum - Placentia, 08-19-24.doc 1041
David S.

Gilad Ganish
August 19, 2024

Page 3 ends

Individual multi -family residential projects and local settings have unique parking and tripmaking characteristics that may not be well represented in typical city code requirements. There are increasing concerns among parking/traffic engineering and planning experts that citywide code parking ratios and parking minimums are outdated, and that the "one -size -fits -all" approach to estimating parking requirements may not reflect actual, more current and realistic parking needs, operations, and management.

There is also the issue of "perceived" versus "actual" parking deficiencies. Perceived inadequacies in parking standards are often related to older multi -family developments built to outdated standards instead of newer market -rate housing projects built to current code. This underscores the importance of keeping parking standards current, and which "right size" required supply by being responsive to changing markets, demographics, decline in car ownership patterns, mobility/travel mode choices, creation of live/work/play environments and mixed -use settings, parking management strategies (i.e., unbundling parking), and emerging technologies.

Comparative Method #1 [using industry (ULI) standards]
Table 2 presents the proposed Project recommended parking ratios for multi -family residential (per resident and per guest) were compared against industry standards developed by Urban Land Use (ULI) and contained in the Shared Parking Manual (3rd Edition).

As shown in the bottom portion of Table 2, the proposed Project's recommended composite parking ratio is 1.29 spaces per unit while application of ULI's residential ratios per dwelling unit by bedroom type for the proposed Project, results in a composite ratio of 1.24 parking spaces per unit. This comparison illustrates that the proposed Project recommended parking demand and composite parking ratio is greater than the recommended composite parking ratio recommended by ULI, which is a highly respected parking reference.

LLG
N:\4800\2244812 - Orangethorpe Mixed -Use, Placentia\Report\4812 - Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed -Use Parking Demand Analysis Memorandum - Placentia, 08-19-24.doc 1042

Gilad Ganish
August 19, 2024

Page 4 ends

Table 2
Proposed Project vs. ULI Parking Requirements for Multifamily Residential Proposed Project
Parking Demand
ULI Shared
Parking (3rd Ed)
Dwelling
Residential
Project
Units
Ratio
Spaces
Ratio
Spaces
1 sp/unit
1 sp/unit

1.5 sp/unit

0.15 sp/unit

0.15 sp/unit
--
--
44 136
102
Multi -Family Reside ntial
Studio (18%)
44 0.85 sp/unit
37 1 -Bedroom (55%)
136

0.90 sp/unit
122
2 -Bedroom (27%)
68 1.65 sp/unit
112
Total Resident:
248
282
7 21
10 271
Resident Guest Parking
Studio (18%)
44 0.15 sp/unit
7 1 -Bedroom (55%)
136

0.15 sp/unit
20 2 -Bedroom (27%)
68 0.15 sp/unit
10 Total Guest:
248
38 320

1.29 37
Total Proposed/Required
--
308

1.24 Composite Parking Ratio (spaces per unit)
--
Comparative Method #2 [using multi -family residential ratios approved for projects that have not yet been built]
Other data points that are noteworthy, are the multi -family residential ratios that have been approved for projects that have not yet been built. For example, the City of Brea approved a composite parking ratio of 1.3 spaces per unit for the Brea Plaza Shopping Center Project based on empirical studies of other comparable sites in the City. This ratio is consistent with the proposed Project's parking supply ratio of 1.29 spaces per unit.

Comparative Method #3 [using empirical ratios derived from the survey recently conducted at 580 Anton Boulevard Apartments]
In order to supplement the Comparative Methods #1 and #2, a parking demand survey was conducted in May 2023 at 580 Anton Boulevard Apartments, which is considered to be comparable to the proposed multi -family residential component of the Project, and is located in a similar setting at the northeast corner of the Avenue of the Arts and Anton Boulevard intersection in the South Coast Metro area of the City of Costa Mesa. Table 3 presents the results of the parking demand surveys performed on Wednesday, May 10, 2023 and Saturday, May 20, 2023, and indicates empirical parking ratios of 1.28 and 1.24 spaces per occupied unit were derived, respectively.

These empirical ratios from 580 Anton Apartments are consistent with the ULI composite ratio of 1.24 spaces per unit from Table 2, which is considered to be an LLG
N:\4800\2244812 - Orangethorpe Mixed -Use, Placentia\Report\4812 - Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed -Use Parking Demand Analysis Memorandum - Placentia, 08-19-24.doc 1043

Gilad Ganish
August 19, 2024

Page 5 ends

appropriate parking ratio for estimating the parking needs of the multi -family residential component of the Project.

Table 3
580 Anton Boulevard Apartments Parking Demands
Time of Day
Parking Demand
Wed, May 10, 2023
Sat, May 20, 2023
6:00 PM
209
238
7:00 PM
214
240
8:00 PM
238
235
9:00 PM
263
259
10:00 PM
270
264
11:00 PM
284
272
12:00 AM
295
288
1:00 AM
297
288
2:00 AM
298
288
3:00 AM
296
290
Peak Demand
298
290
Occupied Units
233
233
Parking Ratio (spaces per occupied
unit)

1.28 1.24
Conclusion
Based on the three (3) comparative methods described above and a recommended composite parking ratio of 1.29 parking spaces per unit (320 residential parking spaces), the proposed parking supply of 320 residential parking spaces (1.29 spaces per unit) plus four (4) leasing office parking spaces and eleven (11) retail parking spaces for a total of 335 parking spaces will adequately accommodate the parking demand for the proposed 248 -unit (316 bedrooms) Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed -Use Project.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this Technical Memorandum. Should you have any questions regarding the memorandum, please contact us at (949) 825-6175 Attachments
LLG
N:\4800\2244812 - Orangethorpe Mixed -Use, Placentia\Report\4812 - Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed -Use Parking Demand Analysis Memorandum - Placentia, 08-19-24.doc 1044

SOURCE: ARCHITECTS ORANGE
LLG
,nlllIlille,,
©NO SCALE
FIGURE 1

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

ORANGETHORPE AVENUE MIXED USE, PLACENTIA

Andrew Gonzales
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Gilad Ganish
Wednesday, August 14, 2024 2:21 AM
Andrew Gonzales
Gilad Ganish
Project - Sidewalk / Frontage
1404-007-cg02cg-Layoutl .pdf
Follow up
Flagged

Hi Andrew -
I had our civil engineer prepare an exhibit showing 8' wide sidewalks on both frontages. That would be wider than what we currently have in our plan set along Placentia Avenue and as you can see it now gets pretty close to the building.

I am sending this to you because I am fine doing that if you guys want, but not if it sends me back to Planning Commission or delays our process.

I would also be open to adding some benches or street furniture along either/both frontages.

Again, only if that doesn't change our current City Council hearing date.

I know this stuff won't make you love the project, but I want to try to do the right thing so I'm offering this if you're interested.

Or if you want to brainstorm anything else let me know.

Thanks!
Gilad
Gilad Ganish
Blackwood Real Estate
1000 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
(949) 510-8255 Direct
(949) 625-9202 Fax
[email protected]
RECEdVED
A 1 4 2024

PLANNING
i

/
TE
Et STREET
•
. RSTNO
71 /%/, /
/,// / //
RIGH T
/ ./// .. CF W AY 8
Jv O

PROPOSED AR
4 /j/
0�' GIIIIFR //
////
F / r
////.. fI.S IMG ORMW AT
Q LO BF BElIOYID
//4�
.,/// // R. FR E
/ /H D RAM
///;,
/
Il
://11
Ex. SKEET
rwlir P.11,
/A' /
i /
/
199. 3 FL
/ h
/ RAYING IM O

FE WNTEWMCE
EA SEMENT TSP.

RISIN G RLCORO
BOUND.

PROPOSED
— —12mSFCIN/
PRRG
P.GC.

PA . R
PROP.

PDC. P.0 .0.

R CP., RCP
RW
so
_1
W, SOW
ST. . ST
rc

EASING CO NTOUR

RN TNG CATCH BSN

RSTNG WATE R NEIER
EN TONG Iraca...110N PULL e0x
010TING ElOCT RC PULL BOY
RI SI NG W41KKE (SW. S9 W1 w EMI)
ENS. 001 HM V.

E ASNG WATER RNA
07051 05 no. POE
[ 051110 CUT W HOA
V70170 SIGN

RISING STREET L GIR POE
°SUNG TPAFTIC 9000E LION
7ST N0 CIWN URN FENCE

U SING WALL

ABBREVIATIONS
05P1YLi GONCRCTE
O. RE ORE B SE
of W.

UTCCURB FACE
C
CENTER

OAST UNE
R PPE
CONCRETE01
EACH
PAT.

COSTING M ONO
ELEVATION VAICUEI15
FNWMDkW
G7 FLOOR
Ros
007011E
DUNE
[D SURFACE

TOE WATER
GRADE AL[ T
H. WERTP ONTOF9PIPE
IN. PEET
OF

LOO PONE

LAIOS ORE
WW SW
NOUN
H
xrp
WR
ONG
PARNNG

PORTLAND CEYEM

CONCRETE
PROPE RTY 1 91E

PROPO SED
POLINER7.190N
CliORIDE

PONTNT OF

C ONNECTION
RE

I NFORCED

CONCRETE

REIE COPE
REGTER
MR OF
WAF

SE WER OR NN MN
SE WER
SOEN1 N
SiMS
STANTIARDf
TOP 10 CURB
TOP oF GRATE
1 711,2
WATER
tlinT
I. 441110ATS WLL£ 115111+70 PDT GOP,,
2 A 6M1 R MR T RI. IP PS NUEG As KO.20
FUSCOE
B ■
C F
Soak 055HO
lob No 1404-,
Date 08-29-/
1047

777 Orangethorpe Avenue - Special Conditions - Explanation of Changes Condition Notes
6 Condition adversely affects project viability.
7 Condition adversely affects project viability.
8 Condition adversely affects project viability.
12 Condition adversely affects project viability.
13a Condition adversely affects project viability.
13c Clarification.
16a Clarification.
16b Condition modified for project viability and art installation viability. 17a Clarification.
17b Clarification.
17c Condition not necessary given location.
23 Clarification.
25 Clarification.
26 Clarification.
29 Condition not necessary.
33 Clarification.
34 Condition adversely affects project viability.
36 Clarification.
37 Condition adversely affects project viability.
48 Clarification.
55 Not feasible as drafted (e.g. the grading permit cannot be held up by a final landscape plan). 57 Clarification.
60 Clarification.
62 Other than fire department truck parking, street changes are not being made. 63 Modified to be conditioned on Final C of O, rather than First C of O. 64 Condition adversely affects project viability.
65 Condition adversely affects project viability.
66 Condition adversely affects project viability.
71 With both Orangethorpe and Placentia being existing streets and the site having less runoff than the existing condition, there isn't a nexus for this project to address the drainage capacity of the streets. 73 Sewer capacity has been previously studied, and then the line was upgraded. 75 Project already has ingress and egress, no dedication is necessary. 77 Project already has sewer connection.
78 Not necessary, previously studied.
79 Analysis not necessary.
81 Condition adversely affects project viability.
82 Condition adversely affects project viability.
83 Condition adversely affects project viability.
84 Condition adversely affects project viability.
85 Condition adversely affects project viability.
89 Clarification, does not modify the intent, meaning, or substance of the condition. 98 Clarification, does not modify the intent, meaning, or substance of the condition. 99 Clarification, does not modify the intent, meaning, or substance of the condition. 103 Clarification on bike room design.
108 Clarification to match site conditions (walls vs fences). 109 Clarification to confirm with construction stages.
111 Project is monitored by on -site staff and is private property. 1048

Attachment "D"
Special Conditions of Approval and Standard Development Requirements for General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2022-01 and Development Plan Review No.

DPR 2021-02
777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue & 776 S. Placentia Avenue
(APN 339-112-27)

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
If the above referenced application is approved, applicant and/or property owner shall comply with the Special Conditions listed below and the Standard Development Requirements attached.

ALL THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND STANDARD

DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FULLY COMPLIED WITH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TO CONTINUE IN GOOD STANDING.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION:

1. Development Plan Review No. DPR 2021-02 is valid for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of final determination, unless extended pursuant to Placentia Municipal Code (PMC) Section 23.75.080. If the development of the site and/or use approved by this action is not established by obtaining Building Permits within such a period of time, this approval shall be terminated and shall be null and void, unless an extension is applied for and approved.

2. Failure to abide by and faithfully comply with any and all conditions attached to this action shall constitute grounds for revocation of said action by the City of Placentia Planning Commission.

3. The applicant shall, as a condition of project approval, at its sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and consultants from any claim, action, proceeding, liability or judgment against the City, its officers, employees, agents and/or consultants, which action seeks to set aside, void, annul or otherwise challenge any approval by the City Council, Planning Commission, or other City decision -making body or City staff action concerning applicant's project. The applicant shall pay the City's defense costs, including attorney fees and all other litigation -related expenses, and shall reimburse the City for any and all court costs, which the City may be required to pay as a result of such defense. The applicant shall further pay any adverse financial award which may issue against the City including Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
15 of 38
1049

but not limited to any award of attorney fees to a party challenging such project approval. The City shall retain the right to select its counsel of choice in any action referred to herein. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action.

4. The site plan, floor plans, elevation plans, open space plan, egress plan, fire plan, building composite plan, irrigation plan, lighting plan, conceptual grading plan, conceptual perspectives, and all associated architectural and civil drawings, including the colors and materials palette, dated received on May 20, 2024, shall be the conceptually approved design.

5. Any significant modifications to the approved site plan, elevation plans, open space plan, egress plan, fire plan, building composite plan, irrigation plan, lighting plan, conceptual grading plan, conceptual perspectives, including any modifications which will change, expand, or intensify the use(s) shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. The Director of Development Services or his or her designee may determine if such modifications require approval by the City of Placentia Planning Commission or may be approved administratively by City staff.

6. Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, applicant shall voluntarily make a one-time Community Benefits payment to the City in the amount of $80,000.

8. Developer and/or property owner agrees to annex into the Landscape Maintenance District No. LMD 1992-01 pursuant to the provisions of California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. Said annexation into LMD No. 1992-01 shall be fully completed in accordance with California law prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project.

9. Developer and/or property owner agrees to annex into the Street Lighting District No.

SLD 1981-01 pursuant to the provisions of California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. Said annexation into SLD No. 1981-01 shall be fully completed in accordance with California law prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
16 of 38
1050

10. Prior to issuance of building permits, except as otherwise noted, the following shall be completed:
a. The Developer shall pay in full to the City of Placentia all applicable citywide Development Impact Fees so long as the fees are materially similar to those that were included in the fee estimate provided by the City to the applicant via email sent on December 18, 2020. Project fees shall materially conform to the fee estimate provided by the City to the applicant via email sent on December 18, 2020.
b.
c. Project plans shall be submitted for the review and certification for inclusion into the entitlement file by the Director of Development Services and shall include the following information:
i. All Special Conditions of Approval and Standard Development Requirements of GPA 2022-01, SPA 2021-01, and DPR 2021-02.

Include any project revisions on the applicable sheets of the project plans. Additionally, include separate sheets with approved Special Conditions of Approval and Standard Development Requirements to be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12point.
ii. Typical cross section views and details through the property and across each property line as directed by the Director of Development Services. iii. Location of transformers, meters, and other
aboveground appurtenances.
iv. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director.
d. An exterior lighting (photometric) plan showing location, type of fixtures and areas of illumination shall be submitted and reviewed for compliance with City standards and the Placentia Municipal Code. Lighting shall neither materially negatively impact adjacent properties nor the public right-of-way.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
17 of 38
1051

e. Submit landscape and irrigation plans. The applicant must follow the procedure for approval under the MWELO for the proposed landscaping. A MWELO procedure and approval package is available from the front counter in the Development Services Department.
f. Postmaster approval of the location and design of the mailboxes, if applicable. g. All applicable provisions of the Placentia Municipal Code (PMC) shall be met prior to issuance of Building Permits and shall be adhered to at all times.

11. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit:
a. The developer shall submit for City approval a construction staging plan that indicates how safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the site will be maintained for the duration of the construction period. The construction stage plan shall include measures such as, but not limited to the following:
i. A telephone number and name of a designated contact person(s) for registering complaints or comments shall be posted in a clearly visible manner along the perimeter of the site.
ii. When construction vehicles accessing the site are expected to obstruct pedestrian and vehicular access along W. Orangethorpe Avenue and S.

Placentia Avenue, a flag person or an approved alternative method shall be employed to direct traffic effectively.
iii. If any sidewalk is blocked during construction, alternate routes for pedestrians and bicycles shall be clearly marked with signs approved by the City.
iv. All access points shall be clearly marked during construction, and if an access point is blocked during construction, a detour sign to an alternate access point shall be clearly posted.
v. A detailed timeline outlining the course of major ground disturbing activities as trenching, excavation, and grading, including all construction work that will take place on the property.

12. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to:
a. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
18 of 38
1052

b. Use low sulfur (0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 5 minutes. d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts.
e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/ grading activity. g. All Placentia Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday — Friday, 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, and Saturdays 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays.

13. The Final Certificate of Occupancy cannot be approved until the following is completed for each respective portion of the property:
a. The property owner(s) and/or their successor(s) willfully agree to annex into those district(s) for the project area identified byreference to CFD 2014-01, LMD 1992-01, and SLD 1981-01. If the subject property is sold prior to annexation into the three districts, the future property owner(s) must complete the annexation process and no Final Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued prior to completion of annexation.
b. Submission, approval, and installation of an on -site public art installation shall be required. It is strongly recommended that the chosen public art piece reflects the rich history of the City of Placentia, focusing on significant aspects such as the citrus growing industry or early oil production eras that contributed to the city's development. Alternatively, the artwork may capture the essence and diversity of the city's community fabric. The public art piece will undergo evaluation and approval by the Development Services Director and the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. The total cost of submission, approval, installation, and lighting of the on -site public art element shall not be required to cost the applicant more than $75,000. If, 60 days prior to the issuance of the first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy the applicant has not yet received final approval for the public art element from all necessary approval bodies, the applicant may pay the City $75,000 to satisfy this Condition, less any actual related costs incurred. The public art element shall adhere to the following parameters:

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
19 of 38
1053

i. The public art element shall not be commercial in nature, a reproduction, or mass produced.
ii. Artwork sitting and its visibility are important project design considerations and shall be clearly visible to the public. iii. The art piece shall be a permanent part of the development and must remain in place for the life of the development. The work must be fixed and located at or adjacent to the site and visible to the public. iv. Outdoor artwork must be illuminated sufficiently to ensure clear visibility from the nearby right-of-way during evening hours.

14. The use shall comply with the following:
a. The applicant, property owner(s), and/or respective land management company shall be responsible for maintaining their respective properties, including the landscaped areas, walkways, and all on -site paved surfaces, free from graffiti, debris and liter. Graffiti shall be removed by the applicant/business owner(s) within 72 hours of defacement and/or upon notification by the City. b. The primary vehicular access gates and pedestrian gates shall be fabricated of high gauge metal to withstand continual wear and tear.
c. Onsite alcoholic beverage sales for the purposes of either onsite or offsite consumption shall be prohibited unless a Use Permit is submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City of Placentia Planning Commission at a publicly noticed public hearing.

18. CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Cultural Resources
CR-1: If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity ("midden"), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) are discovered during any project -related earth -disturbing activities, all earth -disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find shall be halted until the City of Placentia is notified. The project applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology to assess the significance of the find. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A -L) form and filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
20of38
1054

Construction activities may continue on other parts of the Proposed Project Site while evaluation and treatment of prehistoric archaeological resources takes place.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1: If fossils or fossil bearing deposits are encountered during ground disturbing activities, work within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall halt (buffer area) and a professional vertebrate paleontologist (as defined by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology) (the Qualified Paleontologist) shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. The paleontologist shall have the authority to stop or divert construction, as necessary. Documentation and treatment of the discovery shall occur in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. At the Qualified Paleontologist's discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor shall assist in removing rock samples for initial processing and evaluation of the find.

All significant fossils shall be collected by the Qualified Paleontologist. Collected fossils shall be prepared to the point of identification and cataloged before they are submitted to their final repository. Any fossils collected shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they shall be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, photographs, and a technical report shall also be filed at the repository and/or school.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: The following are some simple practices that would be included in the Proposed Project and implemented on site:
• Keep potential sources of pollution out of the rain as practicable (e.g., inside a building, covered with plastic or tarps, or sealed tightly in a leak -proof container).
• Clearly identify a protected, lined area for concrete truck washouts. This area should be located away from streams, storm drain inlets, or ditches and should be cleaned out periodically.
• Park, refuel, and maintain vehicles and equipment in one area of the site to minimize the area exposed to possible spills and fuel storage. This area should be well away from streams, storm drain inlets, or ditches. Keep spill kits close by and clean up any spills or leaks immediately, including spills on pavement or earthen surfaces.
• Practice good housekeeping. Keep the construction site free of litter, construction debris, and leaking containers. Keep all waste in one area to minimize cleaning.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
21 of 38
1055

• Never hose down paved surfaces to clean dust, debris, or trash. This water could wash directly into storm drains or streams. Sweep up materials and dispose of them in the trash. Never bury trash or debris. • Dispose of hazardous materials properly.

HAZ-2: A California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH/CaiOSHA) Certified Asbestos Consultant should be contracted to conduct monitoring and clearance of any removal/abatement of Asbestos -Containing Materials/Asbestos Containing Construction Materials (ACMs/ACCMs) and materials containing asbestos.

HAZ-3: To protect construction workers contact or ingestion of contaminated soils during grading, the following note shall be placed on grading plans prior to issuance of grading permits: "Disposable gloves shall be worn by personnel who need to have contact with contaminated soil during grading and excavation. Consideration shall be given to the requirement for tear resistant gloves; Overalls shall be worn if there is the potential for contaminated soil to contact other parts of the body (legs, arms etc.); Boot covers shall be worn by personnel who need to traverse contaminated soils during grading and excavation or washable boots worn with a boot wash in place and utilized."
HAZ-4: A soil vapor intrusion barrier with a venting system shall be installed beneath proposed future residential buildings located on the Site, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground -Disturbing Activities:

A. The project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any "ground -disturbing activity" for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on -site and any off -site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). "Grounddisturbing activity" shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground disturbing Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
22 of 38
1056

activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a grounddisturbing activity.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground -disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground -disturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or "TCR"), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On -site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground -disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground -disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe's sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

TCR-2: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the following notes shall be listed on the grading plans for the project:

Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remain and Associated Funerary Object A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
23of38
1057

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground -disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination (along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

TCR-3: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the following notes shall be listed on the grading plans or the project:

Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains
A. As the Most Likely Descendant ("MLD"), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.

B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
24 of 38
1058

C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.

D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.

E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground -disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.

F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

G. The Tribe will work closely with the project's qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery -related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
25 of 38
1059

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - BUILDING DIVISION:

19. The development project shall comply with the latest City of Placentia adopted and amended Editions of California Building Codes as CBC, CMC, CPC, CEC, CALGreen, and State Title 24 Energy Standards.

20. Submit approved precise grading plans upon submitting plans to the Building Division.

21.AII public accommodation buildings and their parking stalls for accessibility requirements shall be in compliance with chapter 11B of CBC.

22. The apartments for accessibility requirements shall comply with Chapter 11A of CBC.

23. Shall provide sufficient accessible parking stalls per CBC.

24. The guest parking stalls shall have access to each designated unit on site.

25. All required site accessibility and at -grade accessible parking stalls shall be addressed on the approved precise grading plans.

26.At-grade visitors parking stalls and accessible stalls shall be addressed on the precise grading plans along with the delineated path of access to the building's entry.

27. Complete Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, & approved Civil plans are required for building plan check.

28.A photometric plan(s) shall be provided to address access from all apartment units to the public accommodation area(s) on site and to the public right-of-ways.

30.Submit a complete Geotechnical Investigation Report for the whole project site as part of the plan check submittal for the development project.

31.AII foundation design plans, calculations, and details for conformance with the Geotechnical Report shall be reviewed and verified in writing with submission of two package sets of project plans.

32.The development project shall be equipped with the minimum required photovoltaic systems per the latest State Title 24 Energy Standards Code.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
26of38
1060

33.AII improvement and grading plans shall be drawn on twenty-four (24) inch by thirty-six (36) inch Mylar and signed by a registered civil engineer or other registered/licensed professional as required, or submitted digitally if approved by the Public Works Department.

34. Prior to recordation of the final map, the public improvement plans as required shall signed by the City Engineer.

35. Prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, the engineer of record shall submit all approved project plans on an approved electronic format to the Public Works Department. If the required files are unavailable, the applicant shall pay a scanning fee to cover the cost of scanning the as -built plans.

Demolition

36. Provide a full set of plans for demolition of the existing facilities and utilities, including above ground and underground structures, footings, utilities, vaults, fences, walls, sewer lines, storm drainpipes, waterlines, etc., Plans shall address conditions and procedures, as are necessary, to show that the demolition work will be conducted without creating a hazardous condition, when excavating next to other existing footings, walls and slopes. A separate demolition permit is required from the Building Department, prior to performing any kind of demolition on site. Prepare and submit a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (WMP) for City approval. An approved WMP is required in order to obtain a demolition permit.

37.A copy of the Grant deed and owner's permission on the application for demolition is required at the time of issuance of the permit.

38. The existing on -site sanitary sewer lateral lines must be removed and capped at the property lines. The sewer cap shall be inspected and shall not be covered until an inspection has been made by the Department of Public Works Inspector. This inspection shall be requested at least 24 hours before the inspection is needed.

39. Provide AQMD Rule 1403 permit number, prior to starting any demolition work

40. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify all utility companies and the City of Placentia for disconnection and removal of the existing utilities, vaults and meters. It is also the applicant's responsibility to ensure applicant notifies the Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
27 of 38
1061

Building Inspection Division that these utilities have been properly disconnected.

41. Provide an erosion control, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) for protection of the site during construction activities.

Grading

44. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Low Impact Development (LID) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and/or non-structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and LID Implementation Guideline. Website available at
( http://ocwatersheds.com/publiced/residents/qlltd) Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for priority redevelopment." The LID shall clearly show the locations of structural or Nonstructural BMP's, and assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities. The plan shall be prepared to the general form and content and submitted to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer for review and approval.

45. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and non-structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP).

Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for Development." The WQMP shall clearly show the locations of structural BMP's, and assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (which shall also be included in the Maintenance Agreement). The plan shall be prepared to the general form and content shown in the City of Placentia's WQMP Template and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Website available at ( http://www.placentia.org/index.aspx?nid=262)

46. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that coverage has been obtained under the California's General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number to the City Engineer. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
28 of 38
1062

of the approved SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and available for review upon request.

47. Prior to the issuance of precise grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a precise grading plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer to the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department showing building footprints, new and revised pads and elevations of finished grades, drainage routes, retaining walls, erosion control, slope easements, structural best management practices (BMPs) conforming to the approved water quality management plan, and other pertinent information. The project development shall accept and make provisions for the existing surface water that are the natural flows from the adjacent properties immediately abutting to the development site.

48. Prior to approval of the final design plans and issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall conduct a site -specific geotechnical investigation for the entire site and prepare a report that fully assesses the geologic and soil conditions of the site. As part of the report preparation, soil sampling and any geotechnical testing will be completed at each location where structures are to be erected as necessary. The report shall provide grading and structural design recommendations for avoiding liquefaction, subsidence or collapse for each of the proposed structures and percolation test for infiltration rate fulfilled per Appendix VII of OCTGD. The recommendations shall be implemented by the Applicant.

49. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works Department.

50.AII private slopes of 4 feet or more in vertical height and of 4:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.

51. The development site shall be graded to drain surface water to the existing City storm drain system with no cross -lot drainage permitted. Drainage shall be indicated on the precise grading plans.

52. Surety and agreement guaranteeing completion of all on -site grading improvements including drainage, structural BMPs, erosion control, grading operations shall be posted and executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits.

on the approved site plan. If there is a significant deviation between the two plans, the Community Development Director and the City Engineer will review the plans and determine if a finding of substantial conformance can be made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Director of Development Services and the City Engineer may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for an opinion before making a decision.

Failure to achieve such a finding will require processing a revised site plan.

54.AII parking, common, and storage areas shall be lit to maintain a minimum of 1 -foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and be on photocell.

55. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a preliminary title report no older than 90 days.

56. The applicant shall provide a quitclaim or relocation of easement, if necessary, as applicable in plan review process prior to issuance of grading permit.

57. Provide and identify all pavement and driveway paving materials used inside the development areas.

58. Identify all storm drain structures, types, sizes and specifications on the plans.

59. Prior to issuance of a Final occupancy permit, all public improvements shown on the plans shall be constructed to City Standards.

60. Preliminary WQMP shall include a feasibility check to ensure the proposed infiltration BMPs are not proposed to be within 100 feet horizontally of a water supply well and/or non -potable well for the protection of groundwater quality per Orange County TGD.

Public Improvements and Construction

62. Prior to issuance of the Final occupancy permit, all new public improvements shall be constructed satisfactorily to City Standards.

63.AII the "on -site" improvements shall follow and comply with applicable City standards, in addition to the following requirements:
a. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Placentia standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
30of38
1064

b. Driveways shall be located at a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line as measured where the driveway meets the property line. c. Widened 8' concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along the Placentia Avenue frontage of the Project (the Orangethorpe Avenue frontage sidewalk is already 8' wide). New work shall be in accordance with City Standards and all curb ramps shall be constructed to current ADA or CBC standards. Applicant will be required to utilize the services of the City's CASp inspector at applicant's expense to provide inspection and certification of that all new ADA facilities constructed within the public right-of-way are ADA-compliant. d. The minimum centerline and flowline grades shall be one percent unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall. e. The existing southernmost fire hydrant on the east side of Placentia Avenue shall be relocated to provide for ADA compliance. The relocation of the hydrant shall be approved by the Placentia Fire and Life Safety Department, but shall not be required to be moved more than 10' from its existing location. f. Up to two decorative street benches, with a final location to be agreed upon, with the style being similar to other new benches in the City. g. Up to two decorative trash cans, with a final location to be agreed upon, with the style being similar to other new trash cans in the City. h. Up to two decorative bike racks, with a final location to be agreed upon, with the style being similar to other new bike racks in the City. i. All engineered street and public improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with City and County of Orange Standards. Shop Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
31 of 38
1065

drawings and product data shall be provided for the City's review and approval for all the public improvement items listed above, PRIOR to their installation.

Storm Drain Improvements and Construction

67. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, the project street and lot grading shall be designed in a manner that perpetuates the existing natural drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage area and outlet points.

68. Provided there is adequate capacity in the Placentia Avenue and Orangethorpe Ave. storm drains, the development site shall be graded to drain surface water to the existing City storm drain system with no cross -lot drainage permitted. The storm drain catch basins shall be upsized if there is not adequate capacity. If a drainage crossing a property line is altered and involves the use of drainage pipes, culverts, and V -gutters to conduct the storm water to an approved City storm drain system, a drainage easement shall be established by the recordation of Covenants Agreements and Restrictions for the benefit of each lot. Drainage easement shall be indicated on the precise grading plans.

69. Drainage easements, when required, shall be shown on the grading plans and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement — no buildings, obstructions, or encroachments by landfills are allowed."

70. The project shall be designed to accept and properly dispose of all off -site drainage flowing onto or through the site. The storm drain design and improvements shall be subject to review and approval by City Engineer. The hydraulics and hydrology report shall include detailed drainage studies indicating how the grading, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding, BMP treatment and LID, will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 -year flood per the Orange County Hydrology Manual.

71. Drainage facilities with sump conditions shall be designed to convey the tributary 25year storm flows. Secondary emergency flow bypass shall also be provided as approved by City Engineer.

Sewer Line Improvements and Construction
Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
32 of 38
1066

73.Onsite water improvement and fire protection plans shall be approved by the Fire Marshal, the local water district, and City Engineer. The water distribution lines and appurtenances shall conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Golden State Water Company.

74. The applicant shall submit a Will Serve Letter from Orange County Sanitation District and Golden State Water Company.

Traffic

78. Parking and on -site circulation requirements shall be maintained at all times. a. All pavement markings and signage including parking spaces, directional designations, no parking designations and fire land designations shall be clearly defined and said signage and markings shall be maintained in good condition at all times.
b. Parking site circulation and street surfaces shall be maintained in good condition at all times and shall be swept at least as frequently as public streets in Placentia.
c. All areas of landscaping shall be permanently and continuously maintained by the property owner.

FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY DEPARTMENT

86. The project shall comply with all requirements set forth by the California Code Regulations Title 24 Parts 1-12 respectively.

87. The adopted edition of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Parts 1 through 12, and the Placentia Municipal Code shall apply a t the time the architectural plans are submitted for construction permits.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
33 of 38
1067

88. Prior to the issuance of a grading permits, evidence of sufficient fire flow hours shall be provided to the City of Placentia Fire Prevention. The City of Placentia Fire Prevention Water Available/Fire Flow Form shall be utilized.

89. A fire department access road complying with the California Fire Code, Chapter 5 and the approved fire department access plans shall be installed prior to building construction.

90. The fire department access road shall be inspected by Placentia Fire Prevention Bureau prior to building construction.

91. The fire department access road shall remain unobstructed at all times.

92. A fire department connection (FDC) shall be provided and located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant. The use of a private hydrant may be used with the use of an aboveground check valve to prevent the flow from the FDC back to the fire hydrant, and with the approval of Placentia Fire Prevention Fire Prevention Bureau. The fire hydrant that supports the FDC shall be on the same side of the street. A vehicle access roadway/approach shall not be placed between the FDC and fire hydrant.

93. All required fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to building construction. All fire hydrants shall remain operational during construction.

94. All required fire hydrants shall be readily visible and immediately accessible. A clear space of not less than 3 -feet shall be maintained at all times.

95. Prior to construction a temporary address sign shall be posted and clearly visible from the street.

96. The permanent building address shall be provided and either internally or externally lighted during hours of darkness. The address shall be clearly visible from the street fronting the property and comply with California Fire Code Section 505.1 for size and color.

97. Placentia Fire Prevention Bureau approval shall be obtained prior to the storage and/or use of hazardous materials as defined by the California Fire Code.

98. The building shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with California Fire Code. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Placentia Fire Prevention Division prior to installation.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
34 of 38
1068

99. The building shall be provided with an automatic fire alarm system in accordance with California Fire Code. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Placentia Fire Prevention Division prior to installation. 100. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the building shall be provided with a Knox Lock key box located no more than six feet above the finished surface and near the main entrance door.
101. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the building shall be provided with an emergency radio communication enhancement system. The emergency radio communication enhancement system shall meet the requirements of CFC § 510 and all applicable subsections. The system shall be installed and inspected by the City of Placentia Fire Prevention Bureau prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued.
102. A copy of all approved alternate means and methods shall be placed on the architectural plans prior to submitting them for review and approval by the city.

POLICE DEPARTMENT
103. Open bicycle storage areas shall be designed and protected as follows:
a. Located in areas highly visible to users of the facility. b. Bicycle racks in residential complexes shall be in enclosed access -controlled bike rooms or protected by see-through metal fencing which either fully encloses the racks with fencing or have floor to ceiling fencing and secured either with an access control system locking device or mechanical door lock.

Padlocks are prohibited.
104. Show any vehicle access control gates in the parking structure. 105. Show all pedestrian travel paths.
106. Provide details on fencing and gates.
107. Provide details on the mail/parcel room showing compliance with the Placentia Police Department Standard Development Requirements. Mailboxes not located within a room, in multi -family complexes are to be located in high visible areas adjacent to common area activity amenities and not directly accessed from inside parking structures. Mail rooms are to have glass doors and/or windows to provide visibility into them from the surrounding area. The room is to be always illuminated with a minimum five foot-candles of light on the floor at all times.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
35of38
1069

108. The dog park shall be secured as follows:
a. The perimeter of the dog park shall have a fence, or wall as applicable, at least five feet in height. Fencing shall be tubular steel with openings between pickets not more than three inches in width and designed to prevent dogs from crawling under it.
b. Gates shall be a double gated entry system where one gate must be closed before the other can be opened.
c. Access to the dog park is to be controlled by an access control system if park is part of a residential complex.
d. Provide waste bag station and trash container.
e. All surfaces of the park shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 footcandles of light at ground level, during the hours of operation, including one hour thereafter.
f. A site plan shall be provided showing the park, buildings, parking area, walkways, detailed landscaping with tree legend (if pole lights are used) and shrub legend (if bollards are used), fixture schedule, mounting height, lighting ratio and a point -by -point photometric calculation of the required light levels. If the park is equipped with an occupancy sensor, then a point -by -point photometric calculation is required to show it meets the required minimum level of light. Foot-candles shall be measured at grade on a horizontal plane and conform to a uniformity ratio of six to one (6:1) average/minimum. Landscaping shall not be planted so as to obscure required light levels with light fixtures exceeding eight feet in height installed at least two feet from a tree's canopy at 70 percent maturity.
109. The parking structure plans may be submitted independently from the main residential structure. Separate submittals for the development project and the parking structure shall be permitted.
110. Provide elevations of all sides of the parking structure.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
36of38
1070

Attachment "D"
Special Conditions of Approval and Standard Development Requirements for General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2022-01 and Development Plan Review No.

DPR 2021-02
777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue & 776 S. Placentia Avenue
(APN 339-112-27)

ALL THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND STANDARD

DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FULLY COMPLIED WITH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TO CONTINUE IN GOOD STANDING.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION:

2. Failure to abide by and faithfully comply with any and all conditions attached to this action shall constitute grounds for revocation of said action by the City of Placentia Planning Commission.

5. Any significant modifications to the approved site plan, floor plans, elevation plans, open space plan, egress plan, fire plan, building composite plan, irrigation plan, lighting plan, conceptual grading plan, conceptual perspectives, including any modifications which will change, expand, or intensify the use(s) shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Development Services. The Director of Development Services or his or her designee may determine if such modifications require approval by the City of Placentia Planning Commission or may be approved administratively by City staff.

6. Prior -o -he issuance o- bui ding permits, the app ican and/or proper y owner must make a lump sum payment of $50,000, which will be deposited into a dedicated account for the preparation of a Parking Management Plan (PMP). One year after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, all onsite parking will be evaluated, and this evaluation will continue annually with reports submitted to the City Council. This process will persist, as will the collection of S50,000 annually, until the City Council determines that no further evaluations are necessary for the development. If at any ime -he report iden-i-ies significant parking issues, the Ci-y Counci wi dircc- the Director o- Deve opmen • Services -o initiate preparation of an upda-cd PMP -o mitiga -c these issues. The PMP will be reviewed by the Director of Development Services and the City's Traffic Manager (or designees) to address any parking concerns related to he pro;ec
Prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, Deve oper applicant shall cn .cr voluntarily make a one-timein .o a Community Benefits payment to the City in the amount of $80,000Agreemen- as approved by -he City o P acen-ia City Counci .

8. Prior to the submission of building plans, the applicant and/or property owner, and/or their designee sha submi - a one time paymcn o- $30,000. This payment is the applicant and/or property owner's fair share payment required or the preparation of a reetscapc master p an or Specific P an No. 5 (SP 5). The amount sha be earmarked in a designated account for the acquisition of a professional consultant who will enter into a pro-essiona services agreement with the Ci y o- P acentia. The Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
16 of 38
1072

consu an wi be responsib a for -he prepara'ion, complc-ion, and adop'ion of the streetscape master plan for SP -5. As a catalyst site/development for the SP -5 area, -he pro'ec- is 'esponsib e -or -inancing -he s—ee-scape mas-e' p an. Comp iance wi-h his condi-ion is manda-ory and mus- be sa-isled be -ore -he submission o- any bui ding plans for the development. Failure to comply may result in delays or rejection of the bui ding p an submission.

7. Developer and/or property owner agrees to annex into the Community Facilities District No. CFD 2014-01 (Public Services), or any successor to CFD 2014-01, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 53311, et seq. Said annexation into the CFD No. 2014-01 or successor CFD shall be fully completed in accordance with California law prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project. The successor to CFD 2014-01 is a new CFD that is intended to replace Community Facilities District No. CFD 2014-01 (Public Services). 1-0,8. Developer and/or property owner agrees to annex into the Landscape Maintenance District No. LMD 1992-01 pursuant to the provisions of California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. Said annexation into LMD No. 1992-01 shall be fully completed in accordance with California law prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
4 9. Developer and/or property owner agrees to annex into the Street Lighting District No. SLD 1981-01 pursuant to the provisions of California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. Said annexation into SLD No. 1981-01 shall be fully completed in accordance with California law prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the project.

12. Developer and/or property owner agrees that the City may, at its sole election, require ha- the project sha be incorpora -ed into a new Community Facilities District serving he sub'ect property and/or properies within SP 5 (Speci-ic P an 5) to be created by the City pursuant to the provision of California Government Code Section 53311, et seq. Developer and/or property owner agrees to approve the incorporation of the project into said Community Facilities District as prescribed by Condition of Approval No. 37.

3.10. Prior to issuance of building permits, except as otherwise noted, the following shall be completed:
a. The Developer shall pay in full to the City of Placentia all applicable citywide Development Impact Fees so long as the fees are materially similar to those that were included in the fee estimate provided by the City to the applicant via email sent on December 18, 2020. Pro'ect fees shall materially conform to the Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
17 of 38
1073

fee estimate provided by the City to the applicant via email sent on December 18, 2020.
a:b. required under Ti- e 5 o he P acentia Municipa Code, inc uding sewer impact fees for the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) area, upon connection -o -he CrowherAvenue sewer ine. A-enna-ive y, -he Ci-y Counci may di'ect Ci-y S-aff -o es-ab ish Speci-ic P an 5 (SP 5) Deve opmen- mpac- Fees sca ed -o -finance necessay public imp ovemen-s and mitiga-e -he impac-s o- new deve opment wi hin he SP 5 area. These ees wi cove the deve opmen-'s -air share of construction costs for civic improvement projects, public sa=ey, sewer projects, traffic mitigation, and parks.
h_� Project plans shall be submitted for the review and certification for inclusion into the entitlement file by the Director of Development Services and shall include the following information:
i. All Special Conditions of Approval and Standard Development Requirements of GPA 2022-01, SPA 2021-01, and DPR 2021-02.

Include any project revisions on the applicable sheets of the project plans. Additionally, include separate sheets with approved Special Conditions of Approval and Standard Development Requirements to be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12point.
ii. Typical cross section views and details through the property and across each property line as directed by the Director of Development Services. iii. Location of transformers, meters, and other
aboveground appurtenances.
iv. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director.
mod. An exterior lighting (photometric) plan showing location, type of fixtures and areas of illumination shall be submitted and reviewed for compliance with City standards and the Placentia Municipal Code. Lighting shall neither materially negatively impact adjacent properties nor the public right-of-way.

Submit landscape and irrigation plans. The applicant must follow the procedure for approval under the MWELO for the proposed landscaping. A MWELO Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
18 of 38
1074

procedure and approval package is available from the front counter in the Development Services Department.
e:f. Postmaster approval of the location and design of the mailboxes, if applicable. 1gAII applicable provisions of the Placentia Municipal Code (PMC) shall be met prior to issuance of Building Permits and shall be adhered to at all times. 4411. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit:
a. The developer shall submit for City approval a construction staging plan that indicates how safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the site will be maintained for the duration of the construction period. The construction stage plan shall include measures such as, but not limited to the following:
i. A telephone number and name of a designated contact person(s) for registering complaints or comments shall be posted in a clearly visible manner along the perimeter of the site.
ii. When construction vehicles accessing the site are expected to obstruct pedestrian and vehicular access along W. Orangethorpe Avenue and S.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
19 of 38
1075

c. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 5 minutes. d. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts.
e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/ grading activity. g. All Placentia Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday — Friday, 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, and Saturdays 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays.

6.13. The -ina Final Certificate of Occupancy cannot be approved, and uti itics cannot be re eased until the following is completed for each respective portion of the property:
a. The property owner(s) and/or their successor(s) willfully agree to annex into those district(s) for the project area identified by Condition Nos. 8 12 abovcreference to CFD 2014-01, LMD 1992-01, and SLD 1981-01. If the subject property is sold prior to annexation into the three districts, the future property owner(s) must complete the annexation process and no Final Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued prior to completion of annexation. b. Submission, approval, and installation of an on -site public art installation shall be required. It is strongly recommended that the chosen public art piece reflects the rich history of the City of Placentia, focusing on significant aspects such as the citrus growing industry or early oil production eras that contributed to the city's development. Alternatively, the artwork may capture the essence and diversity of the city's community fabric. The public art piece will undergo evaluation and approval by the Development Services Director and the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. The total cost of submission, approval, installation, and lighting of the on -site public art element shall not be required to cost the applicant more than S75,000. If, 60 days prior to the issuance of the first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy the applicant has not yet received final approval for the public art element from all necessary approval bodies, the applicant may pay the City S75,000 to satisfy this Condition, less any actual related costs incurred. The public art element shall adhere to the following parameters:

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
20of38
1076

i. The public art element shall not be commercial in nature, a reproduction, or mass produced.
ii. Artwork sitting and its visibility are important project design considerations and shall be clearly visible and accessible to the public. iii. The art piece shall be a permanent part of the development and must remain in place for the life of the development. The work must be fixed and located at or adjacent to the site and accessible visible to the public. iv. Outdoor artwork must be illuminated sufficiently to ensure clear visibility from the nearby right-of-way during evening hours.

X14. The use shall comply with the following:
a. The applicant, property owner(s), and/or respective land management company shall be responsible for maintaining their respective properties, including the landscaped areas, walkways, and all on -site paved surfaces, free from graffiti, debris and liter. Graffiti shall be removed by the applicant/business owner(s) within 72 hours of defacement and/or upon notification by the City. b. The primary vehicular access gates and pedestrian gates shall be decora-ivc in na -ure and fabricated of high gauge metal to withstand continual wear and tear. All walls and gates shall be designed with colors, materials, and of design satisfactory to the Development Services Director or his/her designee. c. The property owner(s), and management company, and ord, or simi ar en-i-y shall furnish all prospective tenants with a disclosure agreement, informing them of the potential for noise and odor arising from nearby industrial activities or businesscs. - is manda cry for all tenants to sign this agreement, thereby actnow edging and acceping -he existence o- .here po-entia impacts. A copy of the disclosure agreement must be provided to the City's Development Services Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. d:c. Onsite alcoholic beverage sales for the purposes of either onsite or offsite consumption shall be prohibited unless a Use Permit is submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City of Placentia Planning Commission at a publicly noticed public hearing.

human activity ("midden"), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) are discovered during any project -related earth -disturbing activities, all earth -disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find shall be halted until the City of Placentia is notified. The project applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology to assess the significance of the find. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A -L) form and filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).

Construction activities may continue on other parts of the Proposed Project Site while evaluation and treatment of prehistoric archaeological resources takes place.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
22 of 38
1078

• Park, refuel, and maintain vehicles and equipment in one area of the site to minimize the area exposed to possible spills and fuel storage. This area should be well away from streams, storm drain inlets, or ditches. Keep spill kits close by and clean up any spills or leaks immediately, including spills on pavement or earthen surfaces.
• Practice good housekeeping. Keep the construction site free of litter, construction debris, and leaking containers. Keep all waste in one area to minimize cleaning.
• Never hose down paved surfaces to clean dust, debris, or trash. This water could wash directly into storm drains or streams. Sweep up materials and dispose of them in the trash. Never bury trash or debris. • Dispose of hazardous materials properly.

HAZ-2: A California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH/CaIOSHA) Certified Asbestos Consultant should be contracted to conduct monitoring and clearance of any removal/abatement of Asbestos -Containing Materials/Asbestos Containing Construction Materials (ACMs/ACCMs) and materials containing asbestos.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground -Disturbing Activities:

A. The project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any "ground -disturbing activity" for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on -site and any off -site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
23 of 38
1079

connection with the project, such as public improvement work). "Grounddisturbing activity" shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a grounddisturbing activity.

TCR-2: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the following notes shall be listed on the grading plans for the project:

Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remain and Associated Funerary Object Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
24 of 38
1080

A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

TCR-3: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the following notes shall be listed on the grading plans or the project:

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
25of38
1081

B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does not authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - BUILDING DIVISION:

20. Submit approved precise grading plans upon submitting plans to the Building Division.

21.AII public accommodation buildings and their parking stalls for accessibility requirements shall be in compliance with chapter 11B of CBC.

22. The apartments for accessibility requirements shall comply with Chapter 11A of CBC.

23. Shall provide sufficient No. o gues accessible parking stalls per chapters "A & " BCBC.

24. The guest parking stalls shall have access to each designated unit on site.

25.AII required site accessibility and at -grade accessible parking stalls shall be addressed on the approved precise grading plans.

26.At-grade Visitors visitors parking stalls and accessible stalls shall be addressed on the precise grading plans along with the delineated path of access to the building's entry.

27. Complete Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, & approved Civil plans are required for building plan check.

28.A photometric plan(s) shall be provided to address access from all apartment units to the public accommodation area(s) on site and to the public right-of-ways.

29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a complete acoustical report for the project cha be cubmi -cd -o .he Bui ding Division tha has bccn prepared and signed off by a certi-ied acous-ica consu -an

30.Submit a complete Geotechnical Investigation Report for the whole project site as part of the plan check submittal for the development project.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
27of38
1083

31. All foundation design plans, calculations, and details for conformance with the Geotechnical Report shall be reviewed and verified in writing with submission of two package sets of project plans.

32. The development project shall be equipped with the minimum required photovoltaic systems per the latest State Title 24 Energy Standards Code.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:

34. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all existing and new u-i i-ies inc uding e ec-ric power, to ephone, -e ecommunica-ion -fiber and/or cable TV in the street adjacent to and on -site shall be placed underground in accordancc wi h •hc Ci'y o P accn ria s-andards and ordinances. A u ri i y po es and ascocia cd ovcrh ad uti i y incs oca -cd a pro'ecipropery -ron'age sha be removed.
exis
ong
ing
-ho

35.34. Prior to recordation of the final map, the public improvement plans as required shall signed by the City Engineer.

36.35. Prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, the engineer of record shall submit all approved project plans on an approved electronic format to the Public Works Department. If the required files are unavailable, the applicant shall pay a scanning fee to cover the cost of scanning the as -built plans.

37.Applicant agrees to be the catalyst project site and initiate the establishment of a new Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund ongoing maintenance costs of all new public improvements constructed as part of this project. The CFD boundary sha encompass the boundaries o SP 5 which inc udc P accn-ia Avenue -o -he west, Orangethorpe -o the sou h, 57 Freeway to the eas-, and Crowther Avenue to the north. Applicant will need to annex itself into the new CFD as a condition of approval and prior to receiving certificate of occupancy.

Demolition

38.36. Provide a full set of plans for demolition of the existing facilities and utilities, including above ground and underground structures, footings, utilities, vaults, fences, walls, sewer lines, storm drainpipes, waterlines, etc., Plans shall Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
28of38
1084

address conditions and procedures, as are necessary, to show that the demolition work will be conducted without creating a hazardous condition, when excavating next to other existing footings, walls and slopes. A separate demolition permit is required from the Building Department, prior to performing any kind of demolition on site. Prepare and submit a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (WMP) for City approval. An approved WMP is required in order to obtain a demolition permit.

A copy of the Grant deed and owner's permission on the application for demolition is required at the time of issuance of the permit. /10.38. The existing on -site sanitary sewer lateral lines must be removed and capped at the property lines. The sewer cap shall be inspected and shall not be covered until an inspection has been made by the Department of Public Works Inspector. This inspection shall be requested at least 24 hours before the inspection is needed.
44-39. Provide AQMD Rule 1403 permit number, prior to starting any demolition work
4 40. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify all utility companies and the City of Placentia for disconnection and removal of the existing utilities, vaults and meters. It is also the applicant's responsibility to ensure applicant notifies the Building Inspection Division that these utilities have been properly disconnected.
/13.41. Provide an erosion control, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) for protection of the site during construction activities.

Grading

44. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a Low Impact Development (LID) specifically identifying the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant runoff. The plan shall identify the types of structural and/or non-structural measures to be used. The plan shall comply with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and LID Implementation Guideline. Website available at
( http://ocwatersheds.com/publiced/residents/glltd) Particular attention should be addressed to the appendix section "Best Management Practices for priority redevelopment." The LID shall clearly show the locations of structural or Nonstructural BMP's, and assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities. The plan shall be prepared to the general form and content and submitted to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer for review and approval.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
29 of 38
1085

46. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that coverage has been obtained under the California's General Permit for Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number to the City Engineer. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for review a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A copy of the approved SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and available for review upon request.

provide grading and structural design recommendations for avoiding liquefaction, subsidence or collapse for each of the proposed structures and percolation test for infiltration rate fulfilled per Appendix VII of OCTGD. The recommendations shall be implemented by the Applicant.

49. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works Department.

53. The final grading plan for the parcels shall be substantially the same, specifically with regard to pad elevations, size, and configuration; as the proposed grading illustrated on the approved site plan. If there is a significant deviation between the two plans, the Community Development Director and the City Engineer will review the plans and determine if a finding of substantial conformance can be made prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The Director of Development Services and the City Engineer may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for an opinion before making a decision.

Failure to achieve such a finding will require processing a revised site plan.

54.AII parking, common, and storage areas shall be lit to maintain a minimum of 1 -foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and be on photocell.

55. Prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment or bui ding), the si-e grading, andscape, irrigation, and s-reet improvement p ans sha be coordinated for consis cncy with ach othcr and for concis ency wi-h tho requirements and s andards o- the Ci y o- P acen ia.

56.55. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a preliminary title report no older than 90 days.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
31 of 38
1087

5-7,56. The applicant shall provide a quitclaim or relocation of easement if necessary, as applicable in plan review process prior to issuance of grading permit.

58.57. Provide and identify all pavement and driveway paving materials used inside the development areas.

59.58. Identify all storm drain structures, types, sizes and specifications on the plans. 6 59. Prior to issuance of a Final occupancy permit, all public improvements shown on the plans shall be constructed to City Standards.
64-60. Preliminary WQMP shall include a feasibility check to ensure the proposed infiltration BMPs are not proposed to be within 100 feet horizontally of a water supply well and/or non -potable well for the protection of groundwater quality per Orange County TGD.

Public Improvements and Construction

62. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a street improvemen p an prepared by a icensed civi engineer o he Engineering Division of he Pub ic Works Department. A pub ic improvemen s shown on the p ans and/or en-ative map sha be construc-ed to Ci y o P acen is s andards, ordinances, and policies.

63.62. Prior to issuance of 46t -the Final occupancy permit, all new public improvements shall be constructed satisfactorily to City Standards and match the adjacent public improvements.

64. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement and post security bond, in a form and amount acceptable to the City Engineer, guaran eeing -he consructiono pub ic improvements in con-ormance wi-h the onccoming re-erenced SP 5 S-ree scape Maser P an, app icab e City s-andards, and Ci y Code, inc uding, but no imi .ed -o he -o owing improvemen s:
a. Street improvements including but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidcwa «, driveway app-oachcs, strcc- ights, signing, s-riping, traffic signa sys ems and o -her raffic con-ro devices as appropria
b. Storm drain faci itics
c. Landscaping
d. Sewer sys
ems
Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
32 of 38
1088

c. Strcct
f. A

65.63. A
ighting
stree
o
scape
the s
u
nishings and o
eet improvemen
her e
emen
s
s immediate
y adjacen
o and wi
hin
-hc
boundaries of the project/property area to the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue and Placentia Avenue are referred to as "on -site" improvements. The applicant shall remove all overhead utility lines and utility poles located along the project frontage and underg ound said uti ities, un ess they are deermined-o be elcc-ric -ransmission incs.

AI overhead e ec- is distribu-ion ines and other ovetead utilities sha be -emoved and p aced underground. All the "on -site" s reeimprovements shall follow and comply with forthcoming re'erenced SP 5 Streetscape Master P an, applicable City standards; and Ciy Codcs, and he fo owing design standards throughout, Inc uding bu- no limited o tree grates, ree guards, benches, rash receptac es, bike racs, landscaping, street and pedestrian lights, in addition to the following requirements:
a. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Placentia standards and shall be shown on the street improvement plans.
b. Driveways shall be located at a minimum of two (2) feet from the property line pro ongation at -he curbas measured where the driveway meets the property line.
c. Provide a new raised
Orange horpe Avenue.
andscape median on P
acen
is Avenue and on
d:c. Widened 8' concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along the Placentia Avenue frontage of the Project (the Orangethorpe Avenue frontage sidewalk is already 8' wide'. New work shall be a pub is s-rcc- --ontages in accordance with City Standards and all curb ramps shall be constructed to current ADA or CBC standards. Applicant will be required to utilize the services of the City's CASp inspector at applicant's expense to provide inspection and certification of that all ADA facilities constructed within the public right-of-way areADA- compliant.
e:d. The minimum centerline and flowline grades shall be one percent unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall. fe.The existing southernmost fire hydrant on the east side of Placentia Avenue shall be relocated to provide for ADA compliance. The relocation of the hydrant shall be approved by the Placentia Fire and Life Safety Department, but shall not be required to be moved more than 10' from its existing location and sha I be shown on the Street mp ovcmcn- P ans.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
33 of 38
1089

g. Decorative street/pedestrian combination lights with banner attachment poles sha be provided a ong P acentia Avenuc and Orangethorpe Avenuc a ong tho project frontage.
h. Provide irriga
assumc ownc
ion service
ship o- a
o he new rees p an ed in the ROW he Ci y wi
he cquipmen and irrigation cos -s once instal ed.
�. P-ovide andscape up igh-ing -o -he new - ees in -he s- ee- medians -he Ci-y will own all the related electrical equipment and electricity costs once installed. j. P-ovide 36 inch box Dra
inc ude -ree gra-es and
<e Chinese E
ree guards a
m Trees in
each - ee
he sidewa
oca-ion.
< par
<ways mus
k. Provide 36 -inch box Australian Willow trees in street medians. Subject to change pursuan- -o-orthcoming s ree scape maser p an.

I. Decorative street/pedestrian combination lights with banner attachment poles. cn,f. Up to two Decora ive decorative street benches, with a final location to be agreed upon, with the style being similar to other new benches in the City.

Wig. Up to two Deco-ative decorative trash cans, with a final location to be agreed upon, with the style being similar to other new trash cans in the City. o h. Up to two Decora ive decorative bike racks, with a final location to be agreed upon, with the style being similar to other new bike racks in the City. p. Provide decorative and enhanced visibility crosswalks at the Orangethorpe/ P acentia Avenue intersection.
q.

App icant sha provide -he deve opment's -air share of the construction cos -or -he insta a -ion of -he wayfinding gantry sign on Orangethorpe Avenue, which has been de ermined to be $60,000, as ou- ined in -he City's adopted wayfinding signage program. Fair share cost was determined based on the ratio o- the sub'ec • pro'ect's acreage to -he to -a speci 'lc p an acreage (approximate y

0.' 5). This ra-io was -hen mu tip ied by he estimated average cos o construc the gan •yy sign ($/00,000).
r. Two (2) decorative bus she ters. One to be ins
one on Orangethorpe Avenue.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
34 of 38
•a
ed on P
acen
is Avenue and
1090

s. The -u width o P acentia Avenue and Orange
-rontage sha
be repaved.
horpe Avenue a
ong the project
t7i. All engineered street and public improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with City and County of Orange Standards. Shop drawings and product data shall be provided for the City's review and approval for all the public improvement items listed above, PRIOR to their installation.

66. Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending beyond the projec- boundaries a minimum dis-ance o '50 ee at a grade and a ignmen- approved by -he City Engineer.

Storm Drain Improvements and Construction

69. Drainage easements, when required, shall be shown on the grading plans and noted as follows: "Drainage Easement — no buildings, obstructions, or encroachments by landfills are allowed."

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
35 of 38
1091

7 Prior to he approva of he improvemen p ans, the hydro ogy study sha show hat he 25 year s-orm -ow wi be con-aincd within the srce rom curb -o curb and he ' OOyear s-orm - ow shal be con-ained wi-hin -he s-ree- righ- o- way. When ei-her o- these criteria are exceeded, additional drainage facilities shall be installed. All analysis sha comp y wi-h -he Orange Coun-y Hydrology Manua and Coun-y Loca Drainage Manua .
271. Drainage facilities with sump conditions shall be designed to convey the tributary 25year storm flows. Secondary emergency flow bypass shall also be provided as approved by City Engineer.

Sewer Line Improvements and Construction

73. The app
icant sha
prepare a sewe
capaci
y ana
ysis inc
uding CCTV
o address
he
u ure deve opment demands. The dove oper sha coordinate and incorporate the resu is of -his study in -o -he sanitary sewer deve opmen - and design. Sewer :ow ca cu a -ions justifying sewer ine design up -o the connec ion poin-s sha be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted as part of a sanitary sewer improvement plan for approval by the City Engineer.
7473. Onsite water improvement and fire protection plans shall be approved by the Fire Marshal, the local water district, and City Engineer. The water distribution lines and appurtenances shall conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Golden State Water Company.

75. Prior -o he issuance o a bui ding permi the app ican- sha dedica a ingre 's and egress of the access route within the project site and improve it fully operational as required by the City o P acentia Fire Departmen and sa isactiono he Ci-y Engineer. 7 74. The applicant shall submit a Will Serve Letter from Orange County Sanitation District and Golden State Water Company.

77. ns a new sani
sewer ine.

Traffic
ary sewer manho
es a
he proposed connec
ion
0 he exis
ing Ci
y

78. Provide new and modify the existing striping modifications on Orangethorpe Ave and on Placentia Avenue based on the results of the traffic impact study.

79. Provide Site Access Analysis and maintain sight distance for vehicles exiting at the pub is driveway on Orange-horpe Ave and on Placen is Avenue.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
36 of 38
1092

80-78. Parking and on -site circulation requirements shall be maintained at all times. a. All pavement markings and signage including parking spaces, directional designations, no parking designations and fire land designations shall be clearly defined and said signage and markings shall be maintained in good condition at all times.
b. Parking site circulation and street surfaces shall be maintained in good condition at all times and shall be swept at least as frequently as public streets in Placentia.
c. All areas of landscaping shall be permanently and continuously maintained by the property owner.
8 ns-a teris Vantage Next Video Dc cc ion Sys cm a- P
intersection to improve intersec ion performance and sa-ety. accn
is/O
-angc
.horpo

82. ns a touch ess accessib e pedestrian sysem (APS) pushbut on and new pedes rian countdown system at Placentia/Orangethorpe intersection, in accordance with the recen -edera PROWAG guide ines

83. Rep ace a obso e e 8 inch signa
Placen ria/Orangethorpe in ersec-ion
8� ns
in
indica
ions wi
h 12 inch indica
a decoralye raffic signal po cs and uminairc -ixtures a P accn ersec-ion; and increase he uminaire -ix ures -ram ' -ix-ures -o 8 uminate -he crosswa <s a- nigh and in inc emen wea her
ions a
is/Orange-horpo
-fixtures o be er

85. To maintain necessary traffic safety on Placentia Avenue, the proposed main access on Placentia must be configured to a right in/right-out access only with a new median is and on P acentia Avenue as we as at the driveway to p-ohibit vehic es rom mating left turns in any travel direction at the main access point. If right-in/right out access cannot be provided, the developer shall install a new traffic signal at the proposed main access to minimize traffic safety concerns associated with the project access.

FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY DEPARTMENT

86. The project shall comply with all requirements set forth by the California Code Regulations Title 24 Parts 1-12 respectively.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
37 of 38
1093

89. A fire department access road complying with the California Fire CodeCFC, Chapter 5 and the approved fire department access plans shall be installed prior to building construction.

90. The fire department access road shall be inspected by Placentia Fire Prevention Bureau prior to building construction.

91. The fire department access road shall remain unobstructed at all times.

93. All required fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to building construction. All fire hydrants shall remain operational during construction.

94. All required fire hydrants shall be readily visible and immediately accessible. A clear space of not less than 3 -feet shall be maintained at all times.

95. Prior to construction a temporary address sign shall be posted and clearly visible from the street.

97. Placentia Fire Prevention Bureau approval shall be obtained prior to the storage and/or use of hazardous materials as defined by the California Fire Code.

98. The building shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with California Fire CodeNFPA ' 3. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Placentia Fire Prevention Division prior to installation.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
38of38
1094

99. The building shall be provided with an automatic fire alarm system in accordance with California Fire CodeNFPA 72. Construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Placentia Fire Prevention Division prior to installation. 100. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the building shall be provided with a Knox Lock key box located no more than six feet above the finished surface and near the main entrance door.
101. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the building shall be provided with an emergency radio communication enhancement system. The emergency radio communication enhancement system shall meet the requirements of CFC § 510 and all applicable subsections. The system shall be installed and inspected by the City of Placentia Fire Prevention Bureau prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued.
102. A copy of all approved alternate means and methods shall be placed on the architectural plans prior to submitting them for review and approval by the city.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
39of38
1095

108. The dog park shall be secured as follows:
a. The perimeter of the dog park shall have a fence, or wall as applicable, at least five feet in height, wi-h no more -han 10 percent o- it being o so id cons.ruc-ion.

Fencing shall be tubular steel with openings between pickets not more than three inches in width and designed to prevent dogs from crawling under it. b. Gates shall be a double gated entry system where one gate must be closed before the other can be opened.
c. Access to the dog park is to be controlled by an access control system if park is part of a residential complex.
d. Provide waste bag station and trash container.
e. All surfaces of the park shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 footcandles of light at ground level, during the hours of operation, including one hour thereafter.
f. A site plan shall be provided showing the park, buildings, parking area, walkways, detailed landscaping with tree legend (if pole lights are used) and shrub legend (if bollards are used), fixture schedule, mounting height, lighting ratio and a point -by -point photometric calculation of the required light levels. If the park is equipped with an occupancy sensor, then a point -by -point photometric calculation is required to show it meets the required minimum level of light. Foot-candles shall be measured at grade on a horizontal plane and conform to a uniformity ratio of six to one (6:1) average/minimum. Landscaping shall not be planted so as to obscure required light levels with light fixtures exceeding eight feet in height installed at least two feet from a tree's canopy at 70 percent maturity.
109. The parking structure plans mayindicate sha be submitted independently from concurren - y wi-h the main residential structureremainder of -he deve opment project. Separate submittals for the development project and the parking structure shall be prohibi edpermitted.
110. Provide elevations of all sides of the parking structure. . Prior -o -he issuance o bui ding permi-s, providc Rcmotc Rccr ation Ar a Survei ance Camera P an showing camcra covcragc of the Fircsidc Chat, Tho Hangout recreations locations and Dog Park. Images are to clearly identify who is Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
40of38
1096

using hese spaces and be saved on a digi
30 days.

Resolution No. PC -2024-60
Attachment "D" Page
41 of 38
a
video recorder and
ored for a
eas
1097

PLACENTIA PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
July 9, 2024
6:30 p.m. - City Council Chambers
401 E. Chapman Avenue, Placentia, CA
CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner/Chair Perez called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

PRESENT: Commissioner Evans, Ingalls, Navarro, Rocke, Perez ABSENT: Commissioner Silvestri, Polichetti
STAFF PRESENT:

Assistant City Attorney Kristi J. Smith, Assistant City Attorney Russell Hildebrand (via Zoom) Director of Development Services Joseph Lambert, Planning Manager Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner Lesley Whitaker, Planning Technician Devan Wells, Deputy Director of Public Works and City Engineer Chris Tanio, Transportation Manager Kyra Tao, Deputy Director of Administrative Services Jeannette Ortega, Senior Management Analyst Kiana Louie, Fire Chief Jason Dobine, Consultant Patricia Nahill, Administrative Assistant Margie McCoy
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Rocke
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:

1. Minutes
Placentia Planning Commission Meeting of:

May 14, 2024
Recommended Action: Approve
(Approved 5-0-0-2 as recommended)
Motion by Rocke second by Evans and carried on a (5-0-0-2) vote to approve the Consent Calendar.

Ayes: Evans, Ingalls, Navarro, Rocke, Perez
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Silvestri, Polichetti
REGULAR AGENDA: None
PUBLIC HEARING:

1. Applicant: Toffoli Investments
Project Location: 440 N. Jefferson Street
Placentia Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2024 1098

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 2024-113. A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A +/- 4.97 -ACRE LOT INTO FOUR PARCELS, WITH A REMAINDER PARCEL DESIGNATED SOLELY FOR FINANCIAL PURPOSES, LOCATED AT 440 N.

JEFFERSON STREET WITHIN THE R-3 (HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE -FAMILY) ZONING DISTRICT.

Chair Perez opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.

Director of Development Services Joseph Lambert introduced Associate Planner Lesley Whittaker to present the Staff Report. Ms. Whittaker presented an arial view of the property and noted that the applicant is the developer of the Hudson Development directly to the east. Request is to subdivide the property from two parcels into four with one remainder lot. The property land use is High Density Residential, and zoning is R-3, which allows for up to 30 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has submitted conceptual plans for the intended project, which will come to the Planning Commission to be considered in the future and the development will be similar in size and density to Hudson. Ms. Whittaker noted that Condition #11 was omitted due to a lack of clarity and Staff is recommending an exemption from CEQA based on section 15315 class 15 minor land division requirements.

Further CEQA requirements will be based on the development submittal in the future.

The applicant, Alan Toffoli, was present and stated that the reason for the request for subdivision is to keep finance costs down.

Commissioner Rocke asked for clarification about the financing hurdles as well as about continuity of design throughout the project. The applicant reiterated that the overall development will be a community and will be a continuous build throughout the phases of the project. Commissioner Ingalls asked about the reason for Staff's CEQA recommendation.

Associate Planner Whittaker stated that the submittal meets requirements for exemption as a minor land division. Director Lambert clarified that the CEQA action remains for the subsequent submittal for development.

Chair Perez closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m.

Recommended Action: Approve
(Approved 5-0-0-2 as recommended)
Motion by Rocke second by Evans and carried on a (5-0-0-2) vote to approve the motion as amended with the omission of Condition #11 as recommended by Staff.

Ayes: Evans, Ingalls, Navarro, Rocke, Perez
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Silvestri, Polichetti

2. Applicant: Gilad Ganish, on behalf of Orangethorpe
Investment Partners, LLC
Project Location: 777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2022-01, SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. SPA 2021-01, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
NO. DPR 2021-02. A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND

USE ELEMENT TO ALLOW MIXED -USE (RESIDENTIAL -COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT) AS A PERMISSIBLE LAND USE CATEGORY WITHIN
Placentia Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2024 1099

PARCEL 9 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 BY AMENDING TABLES 2-4 - SPECIFIC PLANS, TABLE 2-5 - GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
RELATIONSHIP -SPECIFIC PLANS, AND TABLE 2-7 - GENERAL PLAN

LAND USE DESIGNATION - POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BUILDOUT,
AND AMENDING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 TO ALLOW FOR MIXED -USE (RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) WITHIN THE SP -5
PARCEL 9 BOUNDARIES AND ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS FOR NEW MIXED USE LAND USE TYPES, INCLUDING BUT

NOT LIMITED TO BUILDING SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA RATIO,

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, DWELLING UNIT SIZE, IN CONJUNCTION

WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A FIVE - STORY MIXED USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF 248 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS, UP TO 3,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL RETAIL, AND A 6 -LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE ON A 2.72 -ACRE SITE, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 776 S. PLACENTIA AVENUE AND 777 W.

ORANGETHORPE AVENUE (APN 339-112-27).

Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution recommending that the City Council Deny the project.
(Resolution Adopted 5-0-0-2 as recommended)
Assistant City Attorney, Kristi J. Smith asked Chair Perez and the rest of the Commissioners to disclose if any discussions were had with the developer about the project. Chair Perez disclosed that he spoke with the applicant. Director of Development Services Joseph Lambert mentioned that Assistant City Attorney, Russell Hildebrand was joining the meeting via Zoom and may answer some questions and also reminded the Commissioners again to disclose during their comments if they had met with the applicant or representatives prior to tonight's meeting.

Chair Perez opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.

Director Lambert introduced Planning Manager Andrew Gonzales to present the Staff Report.

Mr. Gonzales stated that there have been two public communications received since the agenda was posted. The first was from the law firm of Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) who are questioning the merits of the environmental determination for the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this development. They contend that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should have been prepared for this project with studies to justify this. City Staff does not concur with that determination. Second communication was from Litta Queen of 835 Iowa Place, who is expressing excitement about economic investment on this site but expresses concern regarding past and future parking issues. During special events at The Bruery, there is spillage of parking into the neighborhood. She'd like to find out how the developer will address parking. Planning Manager Gonzales also stated that because of this project's scope, there have been many team players that participated with the review of this project; Director of Public Works Chris Tanio, Transportation Manager Kyra Tao, Deputy Director of Administrative Services, Jeannette Ortega, Senior Management Analyst Kiana Louie, Consultant Patricia Nahill, Assistant City Attorney, Kristi J. Smith, Assistant City Attorney Russell Hildebrand and Fire Chief Jason Dobine.

In looking at the Resolution and should the PC proceed, the parking structure is amended to reflect six levels and not seven. He stated that the applicant was present for any questions.

The presentation included a Project Overview, Site & Surrounding Land Uses, Zoning and General Plan, Design and Architecture, Environmental Review, Economic Benefit Analysis Placentia Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2024 1100

and finally the Recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff stated that the reasons for recommendation of denial were determined based on several factors, including the land use element of the City of Placentia's General Plan. Residential uses are not identified and were never envisioned for this Specific Plan, so a General Plan Amendment is also required for this project. Director Lambert stated that there are several (10) Specific Plans within our City and that each one has a General Plan land use designation of Specific Plan, and the General Plan states what the permitted uses are.

Planning Manager Gonzales stated that there are a number of issues and concerns related to the development of the site. One is that this particular property would be seen as a residential island due to the lack of connectivity to existing residential uses, lack of vision - planning to really make this a multi -modal project site. Multi -modal is a synonymous trait to mixed use development, providing improvements that facilitate walkability, bike travel, landscaped medians and improvements to infrastructure that produce safe walkability with destination points and there are very few included with this proposal. Mr. Gonzales highlighted additional General Plan inconsistencies which include the Land Use Element, Safety Element, Economic Development Element, and Health, Wellness, & Environmental Justice Element. General concerns include inadequate infrastructure for pedestrians and alternative transportation in proximity to major thoroughfares, leading to potential safety concerns, increased demand and effects of funding of essential services such as public safety, infrastructure, and parks and recreation. The current parking plan is insufficient and the overall project conflicts with goals of land use compatibility, sustainable revenue, public health and multimodal transportation. Director Lambert included that this project is also inconsistent with the Housing Element adopted by City Council and certified by the State.

Questions from Commissioners included if there were discussions about proposed commercial developments prior to, or in the future, separate from this proposal. Planning Manager Gonzales commented that at the ICSC Conference in Las Vegas and California each year, there are many investors and developers who are interested in this property for the proximity and the ability to capture the potential revenue generating potential of CSUF, OC Vibe Project and Disney Forward, and consider it a viable hotel site. They comment that the price point of this property is over -valued because value is now speculated based on potential zoning, not the actual zoning. Commissioner Rocke asked if City Council declined to rezone this property during this Housing Element process and Director Lambert stated they declined at that time and the City has long seen this property as a revenue generating site. Commissioner Rocke also asked about the city losing services. Director Lambert stated that certain projects have been dialed back due to budgetary concerns this fiscal year. Commissioner Navarro agreed that there is a lack of vision -planning with this project in terms of streetscape, walkability, multi -modal traffic flow, the lack of onsite parking and the impact to surrounding streets. He also would have liked to have seen some connectivity to the proposed Metrolink Station, which is .91 miles away. He asked if the city would be in favor of a housing project of this magnitude if it was rezoned via the Master Plan as part of the Transit Oriented District (TOD). Director Lambert stated that each of the TOD projects are vetted for sustainability, future General Plan updates and sustainability at an early stage of planning and this involves an analysis of Development Impact Fees concurrent with the Master Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which are used to fund street improvements, landscaping, street furniture, signals, crosswalks and maintenance costs to the City. Any similar type of project must be master planned. Navarro also stated that parking would be impacted and there would be jaywalking going on as people crossed major streets to find parking. Director Lambert reiterated that the lack of vision planning is a concern.

Transportation Manager Kyra Tao stated that she has many concerns about the project including insufficient parking, the main access location which is on Placentia Avenue, and the placement of the driveway near a major intersection, with freeway access very close. A Placentia Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2024 1101

huge safety concern from a traffic standpoint. Transportation Manager Tao does not support the project as designed.

Fire Chief Jason Dobine commented that he also has concerns in that his staff is limited, the fire truck is single axle and wouldn't be able to easily access the building, and that the City of Fullerton would have to be called to respond to incidents at this project. He is concerned that the Fire Department would not be able to meet the needs of the residents of this development.

Applicant representative Ryan Leaderman from the law firm of Holland and Knight in Los Angeles stated that the applicant has been working with the city for the last four years. He also noted that this parcel is unutilized and is disappointed with the conclusion that staff has reached today and would request that City Council hears the recommendation of staff.

Commissioner Navarro asked the applicant about vehicles entering the main driveway of the project and where they might navigate a turnaround without a specific turnaround space provided. Mr. Leaderman stated that the project meets all City Code standards.

Commissioner Ingalls asked about the City Fire Department's recommendations and whether it was the City Fire Department that stamped the plans approved and Mr.

Leaderman stated that the City Fire Department approved the plans and provided recommendations.

Commissioner Evans asked if the applicant has seen the findings previously, or are they just being seen tonight. (Mr. Leaderman stated that they saw them right before the July 4th holiday) and if there are any changes envisioned to comply with the inconsistencies that the City pointed out. Mr. Leaderman stated that the applicant does not believe there are inconsistencies and would like to move on to City Council.

First public comment was from Chase Preciado, 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150, Oakland, CA from the Law Firm Lozeau Drury LLC, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) who recommends denial of the project based on MMD deficiency and he maintains that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required due to possible unmitigated environmental impacts.

Second public comment was from resident and former Mayor Craig Green, 650 Nenno Avenue who recommends denial of the project based on zoning, traffic, personal safety, public safety burdens, parking deficits and the limiting of City revenue.

Chair Perez closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.

Motion by Navarro to adopt Resolution PC -2024-09 recommending that the City Council deny GPA 2022-01, SPA 2021-01 and DPR 2021-02 with amendment to change all references of a 7 -level parking structure to a 6 - level parking structure proposed by staff, second by Ingalls and carried on a (5-0-0-2) vote.

Ayes: Evans, Ingalls, Navarro, Rocke, Perez
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Silvestri, Polichetti
OLD BUSINESS: None
Placentia Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2024 1102

NEW BUSINESS: None
DEVELOPMENT REPORT:

Director Lambert reported that Ace Hardware celebrates a Grand Opening this Thursday.

Spitz Restaurant is now open. Hudson is constructing the final phase of townhomes. Chick- Fil-A is in building Plan Check.

DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

Director Lambert stated that according to our Municipal Code, the reorganizing of Chair and Vice Chair is to be scheduled as close to July as possible and that this reorganization will take place at the September 10th meeting of the Planning Commission, and we will likely go dark in August.

PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTS: None
ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Perez closed the regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 8:30 p.m. to the regular meeting of Tuesday, August 13, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 401 East Chapman Avenue, Placentia, CA.

Submitted by,
Joseph M. Lambert,
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Placentia Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2024 1103

ORANGETHORPE AVENUE

PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
City Council
September 3, 2024

OVERVIEW
AGENDA
Project Overview
Site & Surrounding Land Uses
Zoning & General Plan
Design and Architecture
Environmental Review
Economic Benefit Analysis
Recommendation

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project
Overview
•
APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED:

General Plan Amendment (GPA),
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA),
Iopment -Plan Review (DPR)
C DETAILS:
_ it` n. Existing car dealership
e_ ysler Jeep)
Construction: Five -story mixed -
use building @ ±250,681 sf
Residential Units: 248 market
ate units (studios, 1-2 bedrooms
561 sf — 1,064 sf)
Commercial Space: Approx.
2,703 sq. ft. ground floor retail
Parking: 335 stalls (6 -level
structure @ ±132,017 sf & at -
grade)
Height: ±5 '-11" for main building and
68'-6" for he highest point of the
parking str ture
4 1107

07.WORK lWNG6
• communal .yr. !abler
• iestiral lyMs
PRD#CT ENIRr
• sptrimea bee
• enhanced Flamm;
I�
I-IRISIO# LEI
• sfe sleet I
IHk WOL F
• see sheer I.

Project Overview
FEATURES:

I ANDaWr ARIA STplU rah 'maw, t--�

SHEET LI
DorePM1
• Ottdmp reed gmnIl
• !sine! ION
• **Mho!' leunldin
• sea
PC0L ENURE
• see steal
PASEO
• I meet on to fetal
• Amenities:

Mail and parcel room
Leasing office
Fitness area
Club room
Co -working space
Central pool courtyard
37,817 sq. ft. common open space
9,584 sq. ft. private open space
• Outdoor Areas:

Pool courtyard with lounge chairs,
seating, turf, game lawn, outdoor kitchen,
and fire pit
Retail plaza with cafe tables, shade
trees, pottery, umbrellas
Dog park adjacent to parking structure
• Circulation & Access:

Entry/exit on S. Placentia Ave (access to
parking structure)
Entry/exit on W. Orangethorpe Ave
(guest/commercial parking)
Right -turn ingress/egres

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
Site Plan

ORANGETHORPE AVE MIXED USE
777 ORANGETHORPE AVENUE - PLACENTIA. CA

ORANGETHORPE INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC
L,

SITE PLAN NOTES
RELL.R.414 41:1O..1101tOFIMY I.1.11O6011 WY. MT OF
PIXY II PM INPARTILIC N.V.
nail= AMA FOR RIMEI‘pay ay, la NC JOICI471.11..

PlAll IHISIMYRDENYTIRIOATISIN PAP.. OM
DRAMS
ISPROVIllilir"
RSCOJIMMENTn
PICPLIMM ARE 04111 OR -.LS 0117.1.4141. • WARM W -1.I
411.111.0 WA.. MOE SKALD 01113:• Abla DURALI.133 MY
CORM. TOR
LI. RIM OC Wad 011.1:33
WIFAC4.1..-131 RIM MAN AWN' FROM KM.. RIES CAL .44:1
LARDSKARE COD.

GENERAL NOTES
LEGEND
.rt4lrl.1rsrll....l»e49.r,OM,

VICINITY MAP
4 a
rI?E
•
a 7
Ilil RORTH
\
91 ND
NORTH
0 14 v 6R
Arch Itec! ure.

Dasign.

Relationships.

A1.0
Sale I' .3d
Job Na 2021.2 U1
Om. d5&20,2001
1109

SITE & SURROUNDING LAND USES

Site & Surrounding Land Uses
. t .nY1 nrri tal
M •cao rm :•n
Mod Testing, I.

Ora n
I
City of F Ilerto
- City of Anaheim
M oto r
Ao
Edlen Ee;

LOCATION
• 776 S. Placentia Avenue & 777
W. Orangethorpe Avenue, NEC
of Placentia Avenue and
Orangethorpe Avenue
• 2.72 -acre site of the former
Premier Chrysler Jeep of
Placentia auto dealership
• Southwest border of the City of
Placentia, abutting the cities of
Anaheim and Fullerton

PLACENTIA
.ME RIC. CITY
1111

Site & Surrounding Land Uses
memompow
iowitiord
Location
Existing Land Use
Land Use Element
General Plan
Designation
Zoning Map
Designation
Existing
Vacant Car Dealership
Site
Specific Plan
Specific Plan No. 5
(SP -5)
Proposed
Five -Story; 248 -
Residential -Unit
Mixed -Use Building
and Six -Level Parking
Structure
Plan
SP -5
North
Three -Story Office
Building Containing
Interface Rehab; Inc. &
Maxum Therapy
Specific Plan
SP -5
South
(Adjacent to
the Site &
Across W.

Orangethorpe
Avenue)
Fast Food Restaurant
(Jack in the Box), 7-
Eleven and Gas
Station; Twin Palms
Mobile Home Park
Specific Plan;
Commercial
Manufacturing; &
Low Density
Residential
SP -5, C-1 (Neighborhood
Commercial), & R-1
(MHP) (Single Family
Residential Mobile
Home Park)
East
Industrial Uses
Specific Plan &
Industrial
SP -5 & Manufacturing
(M)
West (Across
S. Placentia
Avenue)
City of Fullerton —
Multi -tenant Industrial
Park
City of Fullerton
Industrial
City of Fullerton —
Commercial
Manufacturing

Site & Surrounding Land Uses
Existing Conditions
Adjacent to the Property

ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN

Zoning and General Plan
Specific Plan 5,
ZONING
• Specific Plan 5 (SP5) — Parcel 9
Vehicle dealerships, hospitality uses, general retail,
financial, office, medical, and restaurant uses are
permitted
Residential uses are not permitted in SP5

GENERAL PLAN
• Land Use Designation of "Specific Plan"
Residential is not identified as an allowed land use
Because of the nonconforming nature of the
project, a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) is required

Zoning and General Plan
,W. KIMBERLY AVE

Zoning and General Plan

GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES
• Land Use Element
Goal LU-2: New development must be compatible with surroundings.

Policies: LU-2.1, LU-2.2, LU-2.4, LU-2.21, LU-5.6
Issues: High -density residential in non-residential area; lack of smooth transition, vision planning, and walkability.
• Safety Element
Policies: SAF-4.8, SAF-4.9
Issues: Need for buffers between residential and industrial zones; potential disturbances from industrial activities.
• Economic Development Element
Action ED -2.2-1: Prioritize tax -generating businesses.

Issues: Permanent loss of tax -producing property; adverse impact on future city revenue. • Health, Wellness, & Environmental Justice Element
Policies: HW/EJ-4.1, HW/EJ-5.9, HW/EJ-10.1, HW/EJ-10.2, HW/EJ-12.3, HW/EJ-12.9, HW/EJ-

13.10 Issues: Location contradicts infill development policies; lacks streetscape improvements; p ntial exposure to pollution; inadequate promotion of alternative transportation.

Zoning and General Plan

GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES
• Land Use Element
Goal LU-2: New development must be compatible with surroundings.

13.10 Issues: Location contradicts infill development policies; lacks streetscape improvements; p ntial exposure to pollution; inadequate promotion of alternative transportation.

Zoning and
General Plan
• Mobility Element
Policies: MOB -2.2, MOB -2.6,
MOB -2.13, MOB -3.4, MOB -

4.14 Issues: Minimal public right-of-
way enhancements, lack of
protected bike lanes,
streetlights, and pedestrian
amenities.

Zoning and General Plan
• I-Ini mint." Flamanf
Goals: HE -1, HE -3
Issues: No affordable units; inadequate community planning and connectivity.

General Concerns:
• Inadequate infrastructure for pedestrians and alternative transportation. • Proximity to major thoroughfares leading to potential safety concerns. • Increases demand and affects the funding of essential services such as public safety (e.g., Fire & Life Safety Department & Police Department), infrastructure, and parks and recreation.
• Current parking plan is insufficient and may exacerbate existing issues, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive approach to parking management and infrastructure planning.
• Overall project conflicts with goals of compatibility, sustainable revenue, public health, and multimodal transportation.

Zoning and General Plan
Proposed
PMC Parking
Requirements
Unit
Type/Land
Use
Unit
Quantity/Size
Proposal — Orangethorpe Avenue
Mixed Use
TOD
Proposed
Requirement
Qty
(Min./Max.)
Provided
PMC
Qty
(Min./Max.)
Studio
44 1 min./1 max.
44 44
1 min./1
max.
44 1 -Bedroom
136
1 min./1 max.
136
136
1 min./1.5
max.
136/204
2 -Bedroom
68 1 min./1.5
max.
102
102

1.5 min/ 2
max.
102/136
3 -Bedroom
-
2 min./2 max.
-
-
2 min./2.5
max.
0 Guest/Leasing
-
Spaces per 5
units: 1 min./1
max.
50 53
Spaces per
10 units: 2
min / 3 max.
50/75
Retail
2,500
Retail &
Residential
parking may
be shared.
0 0
Spaces per
1,000 SF: 2
min. / 4 max.
5/10
TOTAL
248
332
335
337/469
TOD Parking vs Orangethorpe Avenue Mixed Use
SPECIFIC PLAN 5
TOD
Orangethorpe Mixed Use
(248 Units/ 91 du/ac)
Herald
(215 Units/ 73
du/ac)
Cenza
(418 Units/ 83
du/ac)
Metro at Melrose
(189 units/ 89
du/ac)
Req'ts
Provided
TOD
Req'ts
Req'Proposed
(min./
max.)
Provided
Req'd
(min./
max.)
Provided
Req'd
(min./
max.)
Provided
332
335
337/469
316/445
394
591/793
626
257/374
272 i

DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURE

Design and Architecture
Contemporary Brownstone Architecture
• Style: Contemporary interpretation of traditional Brownstone architecture • Elements: Blend of traditional (brown sandstone facades) and modern design (sleeker lines, larger windows, updated materials.
• Design Features
Structure: Multiple floors, each with multiple apartment units.

Interiors: Spacious layouts, high ceilings, abundant natural light. • Facade and Materials
Design: Numerous facade breaks for shade and material transitions.

First Floor: High ceilings for commercial storefronts, 20 ft. high brick veneer.

Upper Stories: Brick veneer or painted stucco, lighter colors to avoid monolithic appearance.

Windows: Strategically placed for maximum natural light.

Balconies: Wrought iron -style reminiscent of 19th -century fire escapes. • Community Integration
Murals: Potential for blank facades to host murals reflecting community history.

Scale: Building's size and scale not in harmony with the surrounding single -story and two-story neighborhood context.

i9F

1. Painted Stucco
- 2DI30
C. Vinyl Window! Door
ED

2. Brick Veneer

7. Storefront Window i Door

SOUTH ELEVATION

3. Brick Veneer 2

8. Meal Scupper & downspout

4. Metal Balcony with
Wire Mesh Railing
Cr. Accent Light Fixture
rill in

5. Foam Trim
C. Metal Canopy
A. Off -White
B. Rose -Gray G. Gray 1
F. Charcoal
D. Slate E Gray 2
G. Brick Red
21 1124

Design and Architecture
MILO
MILS
WOOL •
E IG
X111 _.
-I infLINFI
ilTkP
El 16
STNt LA tI
11 -'i`- -- 7 II
1E_
11 1I "
11- -.
—7
a_ 1- 1131
# EAST ELEVATION 1
m .a IQ NORTH ELEVATIn"'

KEY MAP
2 ce
ORAAr.ET04 E AVE
NTO

PLACENTIA
qll .ME RIC. CITY
1125

Design and Architecture
lanT
Il Er -
I MP -
,s CI
11 114 ! I 1!1 ! 1 MI
1 fl4 Ikk HI
111 11 q 11 we
111 ul !lin ilt 11 n
u lu k!
!41 111 Ill Ill 111 411 ■■ 111 Ili
I!I Ifl -. n IR 111 4n
RETAIL
t was
4 WPM
e lc u WEST ELEVATION 1
SOUTH ELEVATION 2

KEY MAP
*****
1126

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Environmental Review
• Environmental checklist prepared by Harris and Associates and peer reviewed by the City's CEQA consultant PGN which resulted in the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration document Studies prepared for the document included air quality, asbestos & lead, dry utility report, geotechnical investigation, water quality, sewer analysis, traffic study, water study, soil & soil vapor investigation, Phase 1 environmental analysis, and fire development plan review.

Nine mitigation measures in the areas of Cultural Resources, Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Tribal Cultural Resources • Notice of Intent mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of property, published in the local paper, and distributed to the Governor's Office of Planning Research (OPR)/State Clearing House for 30 -day public review period.

Findings for the Environmental Review
Findings
• No Impact/Less than Significant Impact: Most environmental categories. • Mitigation Required: Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Tribal Cultural Resources.
• Mitigation Measures: Proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels with seven mitigation measures
Conclusion
• Mitigated Negative Declaration: No significantly adverse impacts with incorporation of nine mitigation measures.
• City Determination: MND is sufficient
• CEQA Guidelines: Title 14 CCR Section 15270 - Projects which are disapproved are statutorily exempt.

ECONOMIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Economic Benefit Analysis

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCONSISTENCIE
Action ED -2.2-1: Prioritize tax -generating businesses. r Issues: Permanent loss of tax -producing property; adverse impact on future city revenue.

CITY COUNCIL AP'r t OVED 1RATEGIC PLAN INCONSISTENCIES
■ ENSURE LONG-TERM FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
Objective 1.4: Protect and preserve existing economic development/property nodes to maximize revenue opportunities.

Objective 1.5: Continue diversifying the City's revenue sources to prevent over -reliance on any single source (e.g., Measure U/Property Tax).

Permanently removing a commercially designated and historically tax -producing site from the city's inventory would reduce the already limited commercial land (less than 5% of the city's total area), potentially harming the sustainable revenue stream for the City's General Fund. • PROMOTE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Objective 3.3: Promote Community and Economic Development by continuing to recruit and attract retail, hotel, and other commercial businesses that complement key City assets (Anaheim Resort District, Cal State Fullerton, OC Vibe, Angel Stadium Projects). Permanently removing this commercially designated site from the City's inventory would eliminate its potential for future commercial use, despite past interest from hoteliers and automobile dealerships.

new economic impact analysis shows that Cal State Fullerton is a major driver of aconornic activity statewide, powering $2.26 billion in economic activity, supporting 5,000 'obs and c eneratin. $126 million in local and state tax revenue. The bulk o' that impact is felt in Orange and Los Angeles counties. •
L.
mnliTiiWn��ii ii

FUALEHYON
•
i' :be l `I 1H1ONUFlu; . •' :.: +
Plus, the region is likely to see 4,000 new construction jobs and 2,000 ongoing jobs in operating the theme parks.

The state of California itself is expected to see $20 million in increased tax revenue.

The Southern California economy sees $5.7 billion in benefit from Disneyland, which is the Largest employer in Orange County and a major contributor to the region's status as an international tourist destination. n May 7, 2024, the
naheim City Council voted
o approve a $1.9 billion,
en -year investment for
xpansion at the
isneyland Resort, called
isneylandForward.
-t
W a t •
Disneyland Forward
r y

40.,=
rr - ^: ".
} • r .•
},
�i5 ' alt y5 \ v
•
23*
71 '• _ i1 •'_#Ili{
" ALIN
Irt
: x L. ft»I '
$
(ilk. 45- J .7111
I 'It' *: W i ._ •
r "
•'. • RIt0"". .r }I l 6,;.p,••• .
"••• 3, 'i •
•
•
- :.i:i ii:,4s: . a id 1 ' .i Mini 0;4 14 t.!
he Anaheim City Council unanimously
approved the OCVibe development
project on September 27, 2022, and then
again on October 4, 2022, with a second
ote. The project is a $4 billion, 100 -acre
development around the Honda Center
in Anaheim, California.
•

Economic Benefit Analysis
• City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis to assess the anticipated impacts of three possible development scenarios at the site:

High Density Residential
Hotel Development
New Car Dealership
• Through the RFP process, the City selected Jon Stover & Associates to conduct an independent study to assess the economic impacts of three potential developments including the renovation of the existing on -site commercial building with the site continuing its former use as a car dealership.
• The study also assesses the anticipated state and local tax revenue, or fiscal impact, generated by each potential development scenario.

Economic Benefit Analysis
• Applicant submitted a response Economic Benefit Analysis prepared by RSG, Inc. received on August 16, 2024. The study stipulated the following.

Report Comparison
City Consultant: Evaluated three development scenarios (residential, hotel, car dealership) RSG: Focused on mixed -use residential with 248 units and commercial space.

Fiscal Impact
City Consultant Revenue Estimate: $188,097 annually
RSG Revenue Estimate: $473,866 annually (+2.5x greater) Net Fiscal Impact
City Consultant: -$58,338
RSG: +$227,430
Key Differences:

RSG included additional tax revenues (Property Tax in Lieu of VLF, EIFD Taxes, Utility Users Tax) City Consultant did not account for these in their revenue projections (JS&A amended memo on next slide) Conclusions: The RSG report suggests a significantly higher positive fiscal impact from the proposed development compared to the City's analysis, with a net positive impact even after considering estimated expenditures.

Executive Summary
n
SEM
Economic Impact'
To what extent does the
development create loCal jobs,
wages, and business revenue?
ffi
Fiscal Impact2
To what extent does the
development increase
general fund reserves?
titCommunity Impact3
To what extent does the
development achieve stated
focal plonnrng objectives?
fl) Annudly at stabilization; includes direct
indirect, and induced' jobs !ocared
Lan'thin C;y of Placentia
(2} intrudes unrestricted Genera+ Faro
revenues (other revenues orrd eaPenses
generated anaite are assumed to be
roughfjr revenue neutral)
(31 SY dplanrring objectives according to
City of Placentia General Pion current
Land Use Map 2021-229 Updated
Housing Element

RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT
248 Multifamily Rental Units with
2,703 SF of Ground -Floor Retail
Slight Positive Impact
Adds $10.4 million in annual
economic output, 49 annual jobs;
$3.5 million in annual wages to the
City once complete.

Slight Positive Impact
Net loss of -$2,000 in fiscal revenue
annually; $1.2 million net fiscal impact
over first 15 years.

Slight Negative Impact
Limited alignment with stated
planning objectives; conflicts with the
current land use map and zoning;
activates a vacant property; helps
achieve goal to grow housing supply.

Slight Positive Impact
Features slightly net negative annual
fiscal returns to City; relatively
minimal economic impact.

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
HOTEL

DEVELOPMENT
123 Hotel Rooms with
5,0000 SF of Standalone Retail`
Strong Positive Impact
Adds $17.4 million in annual
economic output, 130 annual jobs;
$7 million in annual wages to the City
once complete.

Strong Positive Impact
Generates $579,000 in net fiscal
revenue annually; $9.9 million net
fiscal impact over first 15 years.

Strong Positive Impact
Allowed by -right; aligns with current
land use map and zoning; achieves
stated economic development goals;
activates a vacant property.

Strong Positive Impact
Features strong annual fiscal returns
to City, with strong ongoing job
creation.

NEW

CAR DEALERSHIP
New On -Site Car Dealership
No On -Site Retaf!
Slight Positive Impact
Adds $11.8 million in annual
economic output, 56 annual jobs;
$5.2 million in annual wages to the
City once complete.

Strong Positive Impact
Generates $485,000 in net fiscal
revenue annually; $8.5 million net
fiscal impact over first 15 years.

Slight Positive Impact
Allowed by -right; aligns with current
Iand use map and zoning; activates a
vacant property; lacks on -site retail.

Slight Positive Impact
Features strong annual fiscal returns
to City; relatively minimal economic
impact; and .slight alignment with
zoning and local planning objectives.

Aaawwrls I3VdWl

OVERALL
IMPACT
1135

Key Findings
• The Hotel Development Scenario would generate the highest net fiscal return for the City among the three scenarios, generating approximately $577,000 of additional annual General Fund revenue. This strong fiscal return is largely driven by $575,733 in Transient Occupancy Tax revenue estimated to be generated annually. A hotel would also result in lower overall fiscal expenditures to accommodate on -site users, as hotel guests typically require fewer municipal services than full-time residents. In its first fifteen years of stabilized operations, it would generate a cumulative $9.1 million in General Fund revenue. • The Proposed Residential Development would have a negative net annual fiscal impact of $58,338 upon stabilized operations. This is due to the enhanced municipal services needed to serve the estimated 384 residents that would reside in the development. The residential scenario would generate a positive net return of approximately $361,808 over its first fifteen years (including one-time tax revenues during construction), significantly lower than the other two scenarios. It would take approximately 22 years for the negative annual fiscal losses to be offset by the $1.2 million in revenue generated during construction. • A New Car Dealership use would generate approximately $483,000 in annual tax revenue (predominantly generated through sales taxes), and require a very minimal increase in fiscal expenditures, resulting in an annual net fiscal impact of approximately $470,000.

FY 2024/25 Proposed Budget Overview (All Funds)
Fund T •e
General Fund
Special Revenue
Debt Service
Ca • ital Pro-ects Fund
Enterprise
Internal Service
Revenues &
Transfers In
Expenditures &
Transfers Out
Net Incr/ (Decr) to
Fund Balance
$50,430,128
$50,925,940
($495,812)
27,579,237
31, 021,820
(3,442,583)
407,750
407,750
456,000
(456,000)
6,169, 640
5,646,040
523,600
4,593,969
4,613,969
(20,000)

City's Response to Financial Challenges
•Initial deficit of $3.8 million identified at beginning of budget preparation process
Departments were asked to make reductions up to 5%
Hiring "frost" implemented for non-public safety or non -revenue generating positions Proposed use of funds from the Section 115 trust to make UAL payment and 75% of retiree medical payments
Proposed use of $495,811 in general reserves
Proposed utilization of Measure U reserve contribution of $888,600 for operating 87% of budget deficit managed through department reductions and other measures

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation
• Key Issues:

Inconsistency with General Plan: The project does not align with the City's vision, goals, and policies for sustainable and harmonious community development.

PMC Non -Compliance: Fails to meet the list of allowable uses and development standards for the subject site and surrounding area.

Community Impact: Potential disruption of the established balance between residential, commercial, and public spaces, leading to significant concerns. • Staff Recommendation:

Recommendation: Denial of the proposed project.

Action: City Council to adopt Resolution No. R-2024-56, denying GPA 2022-01, SPA 2021-01, and DPR 2021-02, making findings of denial.

Alternative Recommendation
Action: Adopt Resolution No. R-2024-60, approving the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MND 2021-01, related to General Plan Amendment No.

GPA 2022-01, Specific Plan Amendment No. SPA 2021-01, and Development Plan Review No. DPR 2021-02. This resolution allows for a five -story mixed -use development with 248 residential units, ground -floor commercial space, and a six - level parking structure on a 2.72 -acre site at 777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue and 776 S. Placentia Avenue, while amending the General Plan to permit mixed -use development within Parcel 9 of Specific Plan No. 5.

Action: Waive full reading, by title only, and introduce for first reading Ordinance No. O-2024-05, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Placentia, California Approving Specific Plan Amendment No. SPA 2021-01, amending Specific Plan No. 5 to permit mixed -use development and parking structures on Parcel 9 and establishing associated development standards on a 2.72 -acre site on property located at 777 W. Orangethorpe Avenue and 776 S. Placentia Avenue (APN 339- 112-27).

Questions?

PLACENTIA
Rich Heritage, Bright Future

Agenda Item No: 3.a

PLACENTIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 3, 2024
Submitted by: Jennifer Lampman
From: Finance
Subject:

Appeal of Penalties and Interest for Business License Taxes for The Bruery & Offshoot Beer Company
Financial Impact:

Fiscal Impact:
$0 - $22,611.05 depending upon City Council action.

Summary:

On September 20, 2022, the City Council approved an agreement with Avenu Insights & Analytics, LLC for business license auditing services. During their audit of business license taxes for The Bruery & Offshoot Beer Company (The Bruery) for 2019-2022, they determined the business had incorrectly calculated the amount of tax owed and that the business owes the City $15,074.04 in back taxes and $7,537.02 in penalties and interest for a total amount due of $22,611.05. The business is now appealing and requesting a waiver of the penalties and interest calculated ($7,537.02) and requesting either a waiver of, or payment plan for the amount of taxes owed ($15,074.04).

Recommendation:

Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Consider and approve the appeal of penalties and interest for business license taxes for The Bruery & Offshoot Beer Co. ($7,537.02); and

2. Authorize the Director of Finance to develop and implement a payment plan for the amount of business license tax owed ($15,074.04).

Strategic Plan Statement:

This item does not correspond to a specific Strategic Plan Goal or Objective.

Discussion:

On September 20, 2022, the City Council approved an agreement with Avenu Insights & Analytics, LLC for business license auditing services. During their audit of business license taxes for the past few years for The Bruery & Offshoot Beer Company they determined the business had incorrectly calculated the amount of tax owed based upon the profit and loss statements provided by The Bruery. The amounts determined to be owed to the City include $15,074.04 in business license taxes and $7,537.02 in penalties for a total amount due of $22,611.05.
1143

The Bruery was notified of the audit results in a letter dated January 31, 2024, and officially requested an appeal and waiver of amount owed in March 2024.

Per Municipal Code § 6.04.180 Appeal of fee, any person aggrieved by the amount of tax he is required to pay under the provisions of this chapter may appeal to the City Council by filing a written notice thereof with the city clerk within ten days after payment of the license tax. The council shall make a decision within thirty days from the receipt of the notice by the City Clerk, and the decision of the Council, after hearing on the appeal, upon notice to the licensee shall be final and conclusive.

In this case, while the appeal was not submitted to the City Clerk within ten (10) days, City Staff was in contact with The Bruery, acknowledged the request and began to research the appeal process in consultation with the City Attorney's office. The City could not find any record of an appeal of business license fees and did not have a clear process in place, nor did the initial determination letter sent to The Bruery by the auditors provide information on their right to an appeal. Both City Staff and representatives of The Bruery have worked in good faith, and the auditors have confirmed that The Bruery modified their methodology, accurately reported their gross receipts and paid the correct amount for their current year's business license. For these reasons, Staff and the City Attorney recommend the City Council consider the Bruery's appeal.

Municipal Code § 6.04.200 Penalties for delinquent payment of taxes, states a penalty of ten percent of the license fee shall be levied in addition to the amount of the license on all who fail to pay their yearly license, due on the first of July, prior to the first day of September. Said penalty shall be also levied on all who fail to pay their yearly license, due on the first of January, prior to the first day of March and on all persons who fail to secure a license within sixty days after opening for business.

In addition, a penalty of five percent of the original license fee shall be added for each month or portion thereof said license fee is unpaid after the delinquent date. In no case, however, shall the penalty exceed fifty percent of the original license. In the case of a business tax audit, penalties may be waived if delinquent payments are made pursuant to the first notice of the audit.

The Bruery has requested the full waiver of the total amount due, and/or the possibility of a waiver of penalties and a payment plan for the amount of taxes owed.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:

1. Consider and deny the waiver of penalties and interest ($7,537.02); and

2. Authorize the Director of Finance to develop and implement a payment plan for the total amount owed as determined by the auditors ($22,611.05).

1. Consider and approve both the appeal and waiver of the total amount owed as determined by the auditors ($22,611.05).
1144

Fiscal Impact Summary:

The audit determined The Bruery miscalculated the amount of business license taxes owed to the City for the years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 resulting in a balance due of $15,074.04.

Per Placentia Municipal Code 6.04.200, there is also a penalty of up to 5% of the delinquent payment of taxes applied for each month the tax is paid late. The penalty is capped at 50% and has been included within the calculation of penalties totaling $7,537.02. The total amount owed as determined by the auditors is $22,611.05.
1145

Placentia City CouncilSeptember 3, 2024

Placentia City Council
September 3, 2024